summarize_card_value

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'retaining variants' and 'requiring finish confirmation' as behaviors, which is some useful disclosure, but it fails to explain what these mean operationally (e.g., does it prompt the user for confirmation? Does it destroy data? What side effects occur?). The description hints at behavior but does not adequately explain the interaction flow an agent would need to handle.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loads the main action. Efficient but somewhat cryptic — the terms 'retaining variants' and 'finish confirmation' are packed in without explanation.

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 tool has 3 params (one required), an output schema, and sits amid many value/pricing siblings. The description is minimal and does not explain the confirmation flow, what the summaries contain, what 'finish confirmation' implies for the agent's UI interaction, or how this relates to value collection/summary tools. For a tool with this complexity and zero annotation coverage, the description is insufficient.

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 for all three parameters. The description names no parameters and provides no meaning for 'preferred_source' or 'preferred_variant'. It mentions retaining variants as a behavioral trait, which loosely connects to preferred_variant, but gives no guidance on values, semantics, or how the parameters interact with the summarization behavior.

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 states the verb ('Summarize marketplace data') and a distinguishing feature ('retaining variants' and 'requiring finish confirmation'). It does convey the action on the resource. However, it doesn't clearly distinguish this from siblings like get_card, get_card_prices, or collection_summary, and the phrases are somewhat jargon-heavy without elaboration on what 'finish confirmation' means in context.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_card, get_card_prices, or compare_card_prices. The context signal of many sibling marketplace/value tools exists but the description offers no exclusions or alternative pointers. The distinctive behaviors (variant retention, finish confirmation) are mentioned but not contextualized enough for an agent to decide when to call this vs alternatives.

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