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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by disclosing that only 284K of 446K products have current market data and ~157K are catalog-only entries with no price history. This prevents agents from assuming every result will have a price. It also notes the output includes product IDs, names, games, and prices, adding useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides relevant catalog statistics, supported games, and output details. The game list is slightly long but valuable for an agent deciding whether the tool applies. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to document return shape. It covers the catalog caveat, supported games, and downstream integration with get_price/get_merkle_proof. Minor omissions like pagination behavior or zero-result handling are not critical for a search tool with a limit parameter.

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 input schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions (query, game, limit), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds helpful examples like 'charizard base set' and 'black lotus' and clarifies that search is by name, but it does not substantially extend parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('446K+ trading card products by name using full-text search'), and clearly differentiates it from siblings by noting it returns product IDs needed by get_price and get_merkle_proof. It also names the supported games, removing ambiguity about catalog scope.

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 clearly positions search_cards as the lookup entry point for trading card products and explicitly connects it to downstream tools ('product IDs (needed for get_price and get_merkle_proof)'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select it over the get_* sibling tools.

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