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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a behavioral trait not in structured data — results are returned newest first — which matters for list ordering. It stops short of describing pagination or the limit cap.

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, purpose front-loaded, with the exclusion clause last. Every sentence earns its place and no filler is present.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers purpose, ordering, and the sibling relationship. It is nearly complete, with only minor gaps around how limit/paging behaves for a listing tool.

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 only 33%: the game enum and limit bound are structurally expressed but not explained, and only query carries a schema description. The description's inline examples ('Evolving Skies', '2019 Panini Prizm') illustrate the kind of values query accepts, adding marginal meaning, but it never mentions the game or limit parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list sets/expansions) and explicitly frames the purpose as finding a set id for a given game or sport. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_set_cards as the downstream call and clarifying it is not a pricing tool.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('before calling get_set_cards', 'when the user asks which sets exist') and an explicit when-not ('Do not use to price a single card'), plus an alternative destination tool. Nothing is left to inference.

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