market_query_by_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses pagination limits, response-size truncation, refusal of oversized records, and lack of auto-fetch behavior. It could add error-handling or response-shape details, but it offers unusually direct information about how the tool behaves beyond a simple read cue.

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 bit rambling, and the sentence 'The captured sale query returned flat listing rows' feels like an embedded audit note rather than essential usage guidance. Still, each sentence carries information, and the opening line is clear and 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 an 11-param schema with no descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers many edge behaviors: size limits, no pagination, filter forwarding, and rental-type nuance. It does not fully explain all parameters, but provides enough context for the two documented keys and broad caveats for the rest.

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 description adds meaning to key parameters: id/card_detail_id, type, rental_type, and limit. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the remaining parameters (gold, sort, level, edition, max_level, min_level) are only handled by a broad caution that filters are forwarded without guaranteed effectiveness. This leaves several parameters under-defined for an agent.

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 specific verb and a precise resource: 'Read individual listings for one card definition using id or card_detail_id.' It clearly distinguishes this from grouped market endpoints by stressing 'individual listings' and 'one card definition,' and names the two relevant identifiers.

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 concrete behavioral observations about type=rent and rental_type=season, and notes that limit is a leading-row bound without a page-two control. It does not, however, say explicitly when to choose this tool over siblings or when not to use it, leaving some interpretation to the agent.

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