Value a collection

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context: per-item requests are polite, up to 10 items allowed, and results include per-item stats plus aggregate sums. No contradictory behavior is disclosed.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The key capability, limits, and item input pattern are all front-loaded and each clause earns its place.

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 the output schema and annotations, the description provides enough for an agent to call the tool correctly: item count, required scope fields, optional fields, and result composition. It could be slightly more explicit about what counts as a 'scope field,' but the schema's items description covers that.

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 description explains how to populate the items array: give each watch a reference number or query and optionally condition/year. It also notes the 'one polite request per item' constraint, which adds meaning beyond the schema's sparse property descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool appraises up to 10 watches and returns per-item price stats plus portfolio totals. This is a specific action on a specific resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_price_stats.

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 clear context: use this for appraising multiple watches in one call and getting portfolio-level totals. It does not explicitly state when to prefer a single-watch tool, but the batch and portfolio framing makes the intended use understandable.

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