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

Annotations already establish the read-only, non-destructive nature. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it is catalog-only, excludes per-card pricing, and details which statistics are included. This gives agents a good sense of what the tool will and will not return.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and delivered in a compact format. The bilingual sentence is somewhat redundant for an AI agent, but it is short and does not meaningfully hurt clarity or scannability.

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 the output schema, the annotations, and the schema-covered parameters, the description provides everything needed for correct tool selection and invocation. It covers scope, accepted identifiers, use cases, and the boundary against price tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters well. The additional text mostly echoes the schema by mentioning accepted set_code formats, and does not substantially enrich parameter meaning beyond that baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns whole-set statistics and a card checklist for one Pokémon TCG set. It differentiates itself from sibling tools by explicitly saying it is catalog data only and directing per-card price questions to 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?

The description gives concrete use examples ('how many cards / SR cards are in 151c') and explicitly routes price-related questions to card_price. It also advises against card-by-card searching for set-level statistics, giving an agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use signals.

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