reserved_list_tracker

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds 'never reprinted' context but does not detail behavior beyond that (e.g., whether it fetches current prices, handles errors, or paginates). Adds some, but not much, beyond annotations.

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 brief sentences with no wasted words. Front-loads core purpose ('Reserved List cards — never reprinted') followed by compact parameter guidance. Every word adds value.

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 only 3 parameters and an output schema present, the description covers param meaning adequately. However, it does not explain the output format or any constraints beyond limit range. Still, given output schema handles return structure, this is sufficient for most use cases.

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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema). The description provides clear semantics: 'max_price: Budget cap,' 'sort: price/name,' 'limit: 1-50.' This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, giving agents concrete understanding of each parameter's role.

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 'Reserved List cards — never reprinted,' specifying the precise domain (Reserved List) and implying a search or listing action. This distinguishes it from siblings like browse_cards or search_cards which are broader.

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 implies use for Reserved List card searches via budget cap and sorting, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like browse_cards or suggest exclusions. Usage context is only implied.

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