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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: a shared-account request budget consumed per admitted call including errors, and an explicit no-retry policy. That quota/no-retry context is exactly the kind of beyond-annotation disclosure that matters. It stops short of describing error surfacing or what compact vs full omits.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the capability statement leads and operational constraints follow. Dense jargon ('admitted', 'tcg_ price-variant ID') costs a little readability but each sentence carries distinct 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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the description covers the consumption model and downstream ID contract. The remaining gap is the undocumented 'view' parameter, which an agent must guess at to control payload size.

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 50%: catalogue_card_id is well documented in the schema (including which tool produces it), but the 'view' enum has no description anywhere. The description's phrase 'variants, provenance and explicit pricing references' hints at the richer view but never explains compact vs full, so it only partially compensates.

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 specific verb and resource ('Read one Japanese source card') and enumerates the payload scope (variants, provenance, pricing references), which separates it from generic card tools. It does not explicitly name the sibling it complements (search_catalogue_cards is only referenced in the schema), so sibling differentiation is partial.

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?

Gives one concrete downstream rule — 'Only use returned tcg_ price-variant IDs for price tools' — which tells the agent how to chain into price tools, but never states when to call this instead of get_card or search_catalogue_cards, nor any prerequisite for obtaining the cat_ ID beyond what the schema says.

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