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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the parse-and-match behavior and mentions a confidence note, giving a sense of the output. It omits details such as how many matches are returned, how confidence is expressed, and how no-match or ambiguous cases are handled.

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 one tight sentence that front-loads the action, includes an illustrative example, and states the outcome concisely. Every element earns its place with no 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the input type and the general return behavior (best matches with confidence). It could provide more detail about match count or confidence semantics, but the essential calling contract is clear.

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 already fully documents the single parameter with a description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds a concrete example ('1989 Upper Deck Ken Griffey Jr #1 PSA 10'), which helps an agent understand the expected input format better than the schema alone.

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 a specific verb+resource: parse a free-text card description or eBay-style listing title and return the best database matches with a confidence note. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_cards or get_card, so it misses the top score.

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 implies the intended use case (identifying a card from natural language or a listing title) and gives an example input. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over browse, search_cards, or find_variants, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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