get_collection_value

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful methodology context ('based on sales history') and the shape of the estimate, but says nothing about whether the estimate depends on the optional username or what happens if it is omitted.

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 zero waste; the return shape and methodology are stated up front. It is well sized for what it covers, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameter.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, naming the returned values (min/median/max) is helpful. However, the missing username semantics leave a real gap, and no guidance on estimate freshness or scope is provided.

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 single parameter (username, optional, default null) is not described in either the schema (0% coverage) or the description. The description never explains what omitting username does, so the agent cannot tell whether it defaults to the authenticated user's collection. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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+resource ('collection value') and enumerates the output (minimum, median, maximum) plus the methodology (based on sales history). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutation tools, though it does not differentiate itself from the nearby collection_summary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., collection_summary, get_price_suggestions), and no prerequisites. The agent must infer the purpose entirely from the one-line description.

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