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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context that public browsing requires no account or key and that results are 'currently available' cards, but it says nothing about pagination behavior despite a cursor parameter, nor about result limits or sorting.

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 two tight sentences that front-load the core purpose and add one high-value access note. There is no wasted language.

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?

Although an output schema exists and need not be explained, this is a 12-parameter search tool with a cursor and low schema description coverage. The description omits pagination, limit semantics, the text-search parameters, and most filter behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent invoking it correctly.

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 only 17%, so the description needs to compensate, but it names only five filter dimensions (occasion, tone, format, artist, budget) and the ordinary/artist distinction. It leaves query, humor, kind, limit, cursor, require_printed_text, and printed_text_contains without meaningful added explanation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('cards') and specifies the scope ('currently available ordinary and artist cards') plus the main filter dimensions. It is clear enough to distinguish this browsing tool from the order-management siblings, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative.

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 sentence 'Public browsing needs no account or key' implies the tool is for public browsing and gives an important access condition. However, it does not state when to use this instead of other tools, nor does it describe when not to use it or how it relates to the order siblings.

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