market_for_sale_grouped

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it excels. It explicitly states observed response size (2321 groups), the bounded leading portion, absence of paging, single GET request, no auto-fetch, array limits (100 rows/256 KiB), truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records. It also clarifies that filter effectiveness is not guaranteed. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 dense but each sentence adds value: purpose, response size, paging, request behavior, filter forwarding, limits, and truncation. It is not excessively verbose for the amount of caveats, though it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points). The key purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential caveats an agent needs: pagination, truncation, filtering, and response size. It explains what happens with large arrays and oversized records. There is no missing information that would prevent correct invocation or interpretation of results.

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?

There are zero parameters in the schema, so the baseline is 4. The description mentions 'Required inputs reflect tool policy as well as measured upstream requirements,' but since the schema has no properties, this adds little specific meaning. It does not contradict the schema, and the baseline applies because there is nothing to document.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Read grouped card-sale price and quantity summaries.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like market_for_rent_grouped by the 'card-sale' qualifier, but it does not explicitly contrast with other grouped market tools (e.g., market_query_grouped). It is specific enough to convey the core purpose, though not fully differentiated.

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 when to prefer market_for_sale_grouped over market_for_rent_grouped or market_query_grouped, nor does it state any selection criteria. The only usage-related information is about behavior (no paging, truncation), but that is about how the tool behaves, not when to choose it.

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