find_similar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey the core matching behavior by listing criteria such as function, stats, and type, which is useful. It does not mention output details, exact-match requirements, or any limitations, leaving some behavior underspecified.

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 compact: two sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence and useful elaboration in the second. It focuses on what an agent needs to know without redundant phrasing.

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?

With five parameters, one enum, and no output schema, the description covers the main selection and invocation concerns: input is a card name, and matching can be tuned via criteria. It could be more complete by stating what the returned list resembles, but the core usage context is adequately covered.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds value by explaining the criteria enum values in plain terms, e.g., 'function (effects)' and 'stats (CMC/power/toughness)', making the enum semantics clearer than the schema alone.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Find cards similar to a given Magic: The Gathering card.' It also enumerates the matching dimensions, which helps differentiate it from generic card retrieval. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a user wants similar-card recommendations rather than exact card lookup, rulings, or synergy analysis. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_cards or find_synergies, nor does it state when not to use it.

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