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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by stating the result cap ('up to 20 summarized cards') and that the total number of matches is returned. It does not specify pagination or result ordering, but this is a reasonable level of disclosure for a read-only search tool.

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 is two sentences with no fluff; the core action and scope are front-loaded, and the return behavior is stated at the end. The enumeration of filters is dense but necessary for a search tool.

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 tool with 13 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of searchable fields, filterable attributes, and return shape. It lacks detail on sorting or result field structure, but combined with the schema's high coverage, the tool is adequately specified for an agent to call it.

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 already documents most parameters in detail. The description adds a compact grouping of query and filters, which reinforces the query parameter's role but does not materially go beyond the schema's existing parameter 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 opens with a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('the Pokémon TCG Pocket card catalog'), and enumerates the exact searchable fields: name, attack, ability, artist, or id. It also lists the optional filters, distinguishing this search operation from sibling tools like get_card, which retrieves a single card.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when looking for cards by free-text query and/or applying any of the listed filters. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state exclusions, but the search context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over catalog_info or get_card.

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