market_for_sale_grouped

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

Despite lacking annotations, the description provides extensive behavioral disclosure: it notes that only a bounded leading portion is returned, that no paging selector exists, that it makes a single GET request without auto-fetching, that array responses are limited to 100 rows/256 KiB with truncation reported, and that oversized records are refused. This goes well beyond a basic description and gives the agent critical operational expectations.

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 description is a single, dense paragraph where every sentence contributes meaningful information about limits, behavior, or expectations. It is not overly verbose, but it could benefit from structured bullets for readability. The main purpose is front-loaded. It earns a 4 for efficiency, losing a point for format.

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 tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is quite thorough. It covers what the tool does, its limitations (bounded results, no paging, truncation, refusal of oversized records), and the nature of the response. It does not describe the exact structure of the grouped summaries, but given the lack of an output schema, more detail might be expected. Nevertheless, it is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly and set expectations.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds context about inputs: "Required inputs reflect tool policy as well as measured upstream requirements. Other declared filters are forwarded as supplied; their effectiveness is not implied by the schema." This is useful even though there are no explicit parameters, as it warns about potential input limitations. Since there are no parameters, baseline is 4, and the description does not harm.

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 description clearly states the tool's function: "Read grouped card-sale price and quantity summaries." It specifies a verb (read), a resource (grouped card-sale summaries), and implies a grouping by sale. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like market_for_rent_grouped or market_query_grouped, but the name and wording are unambiguous enough for selection.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, comparisons, or recommendations. The only hint is the name, which suggests sale-focused grouping, but no explicit routing or exclusions are given. An agent would have to infer usage from context or the tool name alone.

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