evaluate_item_collectibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It never states that this is a read-only appraisal, whether results are persisted, what permissions are needed, or how the estimate is derived, so an agent cannot infer side effects from the text alone.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the appraised outputs come first. It is somewhat run-on due to the trailing category list, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (rarity 1-100, tier, desirability, valuation), covering the return-value gap. However, it omits any behavioral or usage context for a tool with zero annotations, leaving a meaningful hole even though the schema is fully documented.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description's category enumeration roughly restates the schema's category field and adds no new meaning for condition or provenance_notes, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Appraise) and resource (item collectibility) and enumerates the four outputs it produces: rarity score, collectible tier, desirability, and secondary valuation. An agent can tell this is an evaluation/valuation tool rather than a store-management or matching tool, though it never names a sibling to differentiate itself explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no routing to alternatives such as search_collection_matches or inventory_collection_batch. The category list hints at scope but is not usage guidance.

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