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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds concrete output behavior: returns up to 20 summarized cards plus total match count. It does not detail ordering or matching semantics, but read-only safety is already covered by 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 sentences with no filler: the first packs the search subject and all filter dimensions, the second states the result cap and total count. Information density is high and the structure is easy to parse.

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 13 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers search keys, filter dimensions, and output shape. Pagination and locale details are handled by the schema. Minor omissions like result ordering do not materially hurt selection or invocation.

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 85%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description lists filter categories but largely paraphrases existing schema descriptions, such as query accepting name, attack, ability, artist, or id. It adds little beyond a useful capability overview.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search the Pokémon TCG Pocket card catalog' and enumerates both search keys and filters. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_card (single card retrieval) and list_sets (set listing).

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: this is for searching and filtering the catalog, returning summarized matches. It does not explicitly state when to prefer get_card or list_sets, but its search+filter+summary nature makes the intended use reasonably obvious.

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