market_query_by_card

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so well: it reveals one logical GET request, no auto-fetching of continuation pages, local array limits of 100 rows and 256 KiB, truncation reporting, refusal of oversized records, and that filter effectiveness is not guaranteed. These are precisely the hidden traits an agent needs before invoking.

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 poorly structured, mixing useful operational facts with a debugging-like note ('The captured sale query returned flat listing rows'), an incomplete sentence ('Makes one logical GET request Does not auto-fetch continuation pages'), and vague policy statements. The useful content could be reorganized into a clear, front-loaded explanation without losing meaning.

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 complex 11-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial operational context, including limits, truncation, and non-guaranteed filters. However, it does not clarify which of id/card_detail_id is truly required, what the returned 'flat listing rows' look like, or what happens when required inputs are missing, leaving an agent to infer key calling conventions.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and no parameters have enums, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for id, card_detail_id, type, rental_type, and limit, but the remaining seven parameters (gold, sort, level, edition, max_level, min_level) receive no individual explanation, only the generic statement that 'other declared filters are forwarded as supplied.'

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 sentence identifies a specific verb ('Read'), a resource ('individual listings for one card definition'), and the intended lookup keys ('id or card_detail_id'). It is clear enough to distinguish a card-specific listing reader from the many market/query siblings, though it does not name an alternative or set explicit boundaries against similar tools such as market_query_grouped.

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 gives practical context, such as the type=rent/rental_type=season behavior and the lack of a page-two control, but it never states when to prefer this tool over a sibling or when not to use it. 'Required inputs reflect tool policy' is vague and does not tell the agent which inputs are actually required for a successful call.

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