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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose return fields and the effect of omitting `game`, but it does not mention ordering, pagination, error behavior, data freshness, or how `limit` affects results. This is a reasonable read-only search tool description but not fully transparent.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the return fields are compactly listed, and the game parameter explanation is placed last without bloating the description.

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 description covers the core purpose, search example, game filter, and return fields. An output schema exists to further specify return values, reducing the burden on the description. Minor gaps remain around `limit` behavior and result ordering, but the tool is simple enough that this is fairly complete.

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. It explains `query` with a concrete example and enumerates the accepted `game` values, but it does not describe `limit` semantics, acceptable formats, or matching behavior. Partial compensation only.

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 ('Find cards or sealed products by name'), includes a concrete example query, and lists what is returned. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling tools like card_price or price_history.

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 useful filtering guidance for the `game` parameter but never explains when to use search_cards instead of sibling tools such as search, card_price, or sealed_prices. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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