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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: filters combine with AND, returns up to 25 cards with deckodex.com links, and spoiler cards are pre-release and may change. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence adds unique value: purpose, filter behavior/limit, alternative routing, and spoiler caveat. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no required fields, the description gives enough to start (search, AND logic, link output, spoiler caution) but omits details like sorting, pagination beyond the limit, and the exact structure of returned cards. It also doesn't clarify the distinction between traits and keywords, which could be ambiguous. Adequate but not fully 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 only 33%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It adds the global AND-combining rule and the 25-card limit, but it does not explain the semantics of types, colors, traits, costMin/costMax, or limit beyond what the schema already provides. The low coverage and minimal compensation leave the agent guessing on several 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'the Gundam Card Game catalog'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_card by explicitly saying 'Use get_card for full details, effect text and prices of one card', so an agent can easily tell them apart.

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?

It explicitly routes to get_card when full details of a single card are needed, providing a clear alternative. It implies the tool is for filtering/searching but doesn't state 'use this when...' explicitly, and it doesn't mention other alternatives like price_list or my_collection. However, for a search tool, the main alternative is covered.

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