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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: ranked results with fields listed, graceful no-match handling with related styles and did-you-mean suggestions, and that 'no'/'not' words count against a card. It stops short of pagination or ranking-explanation detail, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then triggers, then examples, then return shape, then the alternative — a sensible ordering with no filler. It is on the long side and the example list is slightly redundant with the prose, but every clause carries routing or behavioral 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 an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values, yet it still summarizes them and covers the degenerate no-match case. Together with the sibling routing to deal_hand, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first try.

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; the description goes further by framing `suit` as a browse mode ('browse one suit') and showing `top` in a real call ('bossa nova' with suit=score, top=3). It also reinforces the negation syntax on `query`. It does not add format guidance beyond the schema's own enum descriptions, so not a 5.

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 ('Search the 777 cards') plus the dimensions searched (feeling, mood, era, technique, style name). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming deal_hand for full matched sets, so an agent can separate retrieval modes without opening schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use triggers (user names or describes a look; identify a named look; find a replacement card; browse one suit) and an explicit alternative ('For a full matched set of cards for a project use deal_hand instead'). Four concrete example calls remove ambiguity about scope and filtering.

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