market_query_grouped

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so substantially: per-group limit semantics, intact-or-refused group behavior, no auto-fetch continuation, local 100-row/256 KiB truncation, and refusal of oversized records are all disclosed. It does not cover all error/edge behavior, but it provides far more operational transparency than typical definitions.

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 front-loaded with purpose and contains several earned caveats about bound behavior, continuations, and truncation. It is wordy, with example-based explanations that could be tightened, and some vague phrasing such as "Required inputs reflect tool policy as well as measured upstream requirements." It is adequate but not tightly edited.

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 high complexity (10 string parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is unusually complete about result-bounding, filter trust, pagination behavior, and truncation/refusal semantics. It still lacks explicit possible values and any mention of continuation handling, but for a grouped query tool the essential invocation and behavioral cautions are well covered.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully clarifies card_ids, limit (per group, not global), and the type=rent + rental_type=season interaction, and warns that other declared filters are forwarded without implied effectiveness. However, the remaining seven parameters (sort, gold, edition, level, min_level, max_level, etc.) get no concrete semantic guidance beyond that caution.

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 is specific: "Read listing groups for explicitly supplied comma-separated card definition IDs" names the verb, resource, and input mode. It also clarifies the grouping shape (card_detail_id, foil, nested result list). It stops short of 5 because it never positions itself against sibling tools like market_for_sale_grouped, market_for_rent_grouped, or market_query_by_card, leaving the exact listing category somewhat implicit.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is appropriate when you have comma-separated card definition IDs and want grouped results, and it warns that other filters may be forwarded without guaranteed effectiveness. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or exclusionary guidance, so an agent must infer when to prefer this over the grouped market siblings.

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