market_query_grouped

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so extensively. It reveals that groups are returned intact or refused, that limit applies per group, that the call is a single logical GET, that continuation pages are not auto-fetched, that array responses are truncated at 100 rows and 256 KiB with truncation reported, and that oversized records are refused without partial fields. This is strong behavioral transparency.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the description contains many valuable operational details. However, it is dense and somewhat disjointed, with fragments like 'Makes one logical GET request Does not auto-fetch continuation pages' lacking punctuation, and vague filler such as 'Required inputs reflect tool policy as well as measured upstream requirements.' It earns a middle score: informative but not tightly structured.

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?

The description covers result-group shape, per-group limits, pagination behavior, local truncation, and refusal semantics, which is substantial given no annotations and no output schema. Yet it does not define most filter parameters, and without an output schema it leaves the full return structure under-specified beyond card_detail_id, foil, and a nested result list. It is reasonably complete operationally but not fully complete contextually.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify card_ids (comma-separated), limit (per-group), and type/rental_type (rental season behavior), plus a caveat that other declared filters are forwarded without implied effectiveness. However, gold, sort, edition, level, min_level, and max_level receive no semantic explanation, leaving most of the 10 parameters effectively undocumented.

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 resource: 'Read listing groups for explicitly supplied comma-separated card definition IDs.' It clearly conveys what the tool does and the core input. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely named siblings like market_for_sale_grouped or market_for_rent_grouped, so it stops short of full sibling-level clarity.

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 implies usage context: call it with explicit comma-separated card IDs, and type=rent with rental_type=season is demonstrated. It also clarifies that limit is per-group, not a global row limit. But it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as market_query_by_card or market_for_sale_grouped, and gives no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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