Hunt across a family of collections

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

Annotations mark it readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and nothing in the text contradicts those. The description adds concrete runtime behavior: batching costs ('each one costs a request or two'), pagination ('hands back a cursor for the rest'), and per-match fields ('its ask, that collection's floor and how far above floor'). This goes beyond the annotation hints.

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 front-loads the action ('Search MANY collections at once') and stays information-dense; every sentence adds either a use case, an output detail, or a grouping instruction. The examples and parameter context are compact rather than padded.

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 eight parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key missing pieces: output shape ('Each match names its collection, its ask, that collection's floor'), pagination/cursor behavior, cost implications of batch, and source of groups. This is sufficient for an agent to construct a valid first call.

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 carries the parameter-level burden and the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter meaning by mapping serials to edition numbers, linking startAt to the returned cursor, and explaining that collections can be named directly or sourced from search_collections. It does not repeat the schema's per-parameter details.

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 the core verb and scope: 'Search MANY collections at once for a specific edition number.' It then gives concrete example questions and states what each match returns, making the resource and output unambiguous. This clearly differentiates it from single-collection tools without restating the tool name.

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 gives a clear trigger: questions like 'any #1 for sale across DC' that cannot be asked of one collection. It also directs agents to 'Use groups from search_collections, or name the collections yourself.' It does not explicitly say to use find_listings for single-collection lookups, so alternative exclusion is implicit rather than stated.

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