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

Annotations carry readOnlyHint=false, and the description explains why: 'Calls record usage and query metadata within POKEKA.' It also discloses pagination tiers (20 cards/page for anonymous, 50 for Pro) and rate-guarding. No contradiction between description and annotations; side effects are explicitly stated.

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 well-structured and front-loads the core purpose, but the included Chinese translation is redundant in English context and adds length without new information. Still, it's efficient given the breadth of content covered.

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 relatively complex tool (multiple statistics, variants, pagination), the description covers all key aspects and explicitly lists alternatives. An output schema exists, so return-format details are not required. The description gives an agent everything needed to decide and call appropriately.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the semantics (e.g., set_code accepts multiple forms) but adds minimal new information beyond what the schema already provides. The examples are helpful but not essential.

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 ('get') and a clear resource ('set overview'), and lists the exact contents (total cards, per-language counts, rarity and variant breakdowns, featured Pokémon, checklist). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting 'Catalog data only' and explicitly contrasting with set_top_priced_cards and card_price.

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?

Provides explicit use-case examples ('how many cards / SR cards are in 151c'), explains accepted input formats (set_code, abbreviation, name), and lists alternatives with clear conditions ('for the most valuable cards use set_top_priced_cards; per-card prices via card_price'). No ambiguity about when to invoke this tool.

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