cards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes the tool's context-dependent behavior (no arguments vs. sport vs. sport+year vs. product_id). It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a read-only browsing tool, this is sufficient.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the behavior for all argument combinations. It is concise but lacks any extraneous information. A small improvement could be separating into bullet points for clarity.

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 fully explains the tool's behavior for all argument combinations. Despite no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly listing what each call returns. For a hierarchical browsing tool with three optional parameters, this is 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning each parameter has a description. The description adds significant context beyond the schema by explaining the hierarchical relationship and the specific output for each argument combination.

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 tool's purpose: navigating a database hierarchy of sports, years, products, and sets. It specifies the output for different argument combinations, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_cards or get_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 implicitly guides usage by showing how arguments change the output level. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the progression is clear. More explicit exclusions would elevate to 5.

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

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'changes daily' which is useful, but does not explicitly state that it is a safe, read-only operation or any other behavioral traits.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, description should ideally clarify return format, but it only states purpose. Adequate for a simple daily card, but lacks completeness.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline score of 4 is appropriate. Description adds nothing beyond schema, but schema has no need for additional 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?

Clearly states it returns a featured card of the day, distinguishing it from siblings like search_cards or get_card which require specific queries or IDs.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not instructions, but the purpose implies use for a daily featured card. Lacks mention of alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only query operation and explains matching logic, but does not detail output format, pagination, error handling, or side effects. Adequate but slightly lacking in depth.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence defines the tool's purpose, the second clarifies the matching criteria. Perfectly concise and structured.

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?

Given the simple schema (one required parameter) and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's logic and selection criteria. Could be improved by mentioning the return type (list or single) or common fields, but overall complete for its complexity.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter card_id. The description adds meaningful context by explaining how card_id is used (to find cards sharing year, product, number, subjects), clarifying the variant logic beyond the schema's generic description.

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 tool finds parallels/variants of a card, specifying the matching criteria (year, product, card number, subjects) and contrasting with different set, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_card or search_cards.

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 provides a clear context for when to use this tool: when you need variant cards that share base attributes but differ in set. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tool names, but the context is sufficient.

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

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

No annotations provided; description mentions 'full detail' and 'related cards' but omits side effects, auth, or error handling. Adequate but could be more specific.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the key action. Minor improvement could be structuring for quicker scanning.

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 simple single-parameter tool without output schema, description adequately covers what the tool returns, satisfying completeness.

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 covers 100% of parameter meaning; description adds that response includes related cards, but this is marginal above baseline.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves full detail for a card and includes related cards, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_cards or browse.

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?

Implies use when card_id is known, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. Could be improved by mentioning 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.

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the output is capped at 500 cards, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on ordering, pagination, or completeness of metadata beyond 'set metadata.' Adding more behavioral context would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence defines the purpose clearly, and the second adds a critical behavioral cap. No redundant information.

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?

Given the complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but lacks details about the return format. It mentions 'set metadata' but does not specify fields, which may be insufficient for an agent to use the output correctly.

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 schema covers the single parameter set_id with a description. The description does not add significant semantic value beyond restating the parameter's purpose. With schema coverage at 100%, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Complete checklist of cards in a set by set_id, with set metadata.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_card or search_cards by focusing on a full set listing.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, it does not specify when not to use it or mention related tools like search_cards for filtering.

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

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

No annotations provided. Description states it 'returns best database matches with confidence note', indicating a read-only behavior. But does not explicitly declare safety traits (e.g., no side effects, auth needs). Given lack of annotations, the description is somewhat transparent but leaves room for uncertainty.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 simple 1-param tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers input expectations and output shape. Could mention if authentication or rate limits apply, but not critical for basic use.

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 100% with a brief description. The tool description adds value by specifying the format of acceptable input (e.g., '1989 Upper Deck Ken Griffey Jr #1 PSA 10') and clarifying the output includes a 'confidence note', which goes beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Parse' and the resource 'free-text card description or eBay-style listing title', and specifies the output: 'return the best database matches with a confidence note'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_cards' which likely does broader searching.

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?

Description implies usage: parsing a free-text description to identify a card, with an example. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like 'get_card' or 'search_cards'. Still, purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer correct context.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states it performs search without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or response structure. Minimal transparency beyond basic function.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant information. Efficiently conveys purpose and optional parameters.

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 search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, description adequately covers what the tool does and optional filters. Could mention default limit (20) or result format, but not critical.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context by summarizing searched fields and filters, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond schema 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?

Clearly states verb (search), resource (sports card database), and scope (player/subject names, card numbers, etc.). Distinguishes from siblings like get_card or identify_card by being a broad full-text search.

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?

Describes optional filters (sport, year) but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to sibling tools. No mention of alternatives or prerequisites.

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