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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses critical behavioral nuances: the two-phase dependency on `strategy`, the fact that cuts are theme-alignment based rather than card-quality based, and the pricing source (Card Kingdom/TCGplayer). This helps the agent set expectations about output semantics and usage sequence.

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 compact (four sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds critical information: what it does, the two-phase requirement, the semantics of cuts, and the price source. No redundancy or filler.

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 workflow (two-phase) and clarifies important behavioral aspects, but with 9 parameters and several sibling tools, it could helpfully explain more about how parameters like `ownedOnly` or `maxAdds` affect results. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, so this is not a major gap.

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?

The description explicitly references the `strategy` parameter and the optional `budget`, and implicitly covers `cards`. However, it does not explain `maxAdds`, `maxCuts`, `commander`, `ownedOnly`, or `maxCardPrice`. With 0% schema coverage, these missing parameter explanations create gaps, though the parameter names provide some self-evident meaning.

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 'Suggest priced deck upgrades: cards to add and cards to cut,' which is a specific verb-action statement. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like rate_deck (ratings) and find_synergies (synergy detection) by focusing on actionable upgrade recommendations with pricing.

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 two-phase instruction ('first call WITHOUT `strategy`... then call again WITH your derived `strategy`') provides explicit workflow guidance. It explains the purpose of each phase and the relationship between them, though it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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