collector_stickers

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the single GET, local 100-row/256 KiB bounds, lack of continuation-page auto-fetching, truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records. It is slightly undermined by the unexplained 'observed four rows' comment, but the behavioral disclosure is strong.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The text is longer than needed and contains jargon and noise ('observed four rows', 'Required inputs reflect tool policy as well as measured upstream requirements', 'Other declared filters are forwarded as supplied' despite no declared filters in the schema). It front-loads the core purpose, but the middle is cluttered and there is a missing period in 'GET request Does not'.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool, the description is reasonably complete about limits and behavior, and it mentions row content (ownership/trade/list flags, cosmetic metadata) and truncation metadata. It lacks an explicit return contract and any alternative routing, and with no output schema the agent still has to infer response shape.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides only the parameter name, type, and minLength, and the description does not compensate. It says 'for one player' and that required inputs reflect tool policy, but it does not define whether player is an account name, ID, or any format detail; at 0% schema description coverage, this is a clear gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening phrase 'Read the full sticker-list route for one player' gives a specific verb and resource, and the description narrows scope by saying there is no card metadata fan-out, purchases, or layout changes. It does not explicitly contrast a sibling like collector_stickers_tradeable, but the purpose is clear enough to distinguish it from nearby collector_* tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when it is appropriate by noting 'one GET, no card metadata fan-out, purchases or layout changes' and that the route name does not promise complete holdings. It never names an alternative tool or states a condition for choosing this one over collector_stickers_tradeable or collector_binder, so guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.