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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the description is not obligated to restate safety. It does add one genuinely useful non-annotation fact: a cost model of 1 credit per page, which affects how an agent sizes page_size and pages through results.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the cost note. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 7-parameter paginated search with 86% schema coverage and full read-only annotations, the description covers what it searches and what it costs. The remaining gap is that there is no output schema, so the description does not indicate what a result page contains beyond the implicit cursor in the schema.

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 86%, so the schema already explains q (name FR/EN or number), game slug, cursor, rarity format, language, and edition_id. The description's filter list largely mirrors those fields and adds no format rules, examples, or combination semantics beyond the 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?

States a concrete verb and resource ("Search the cards of a game") and enumerates the filterable dimensions, which lets an agent distinguish it from get_card and get_cards_batch. It falls short of a 5 because it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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 search usage through its filter list, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not point to get_card (single lookup), identify_card, or search_sealed as alternatives. The agent must infer the boundary from the names alone.

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