get_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully lists return contents (mana cost, oracle text, prices, legalities), but it does not clarify whether fuzzy matching can return multiple cards, what 'more' includes, or any API-specific behaviors. The description gives some value but omits important behavioral nuances.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then lists key return values. Every word earns its place with no redundant filler.

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?

The tool has only 2 parameters and no output schema, so the description is the primary source of return information. It lists several key fields but ends with 'and more', leaving the full return shape unspecified. It also does not explain behavior when multiple cards match, which is relevant given the fuzzy-matching parameter.

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 parameters 'name' and 'exact' are already fully explained in their property descriptions. The tool description only repeats 'by name' and adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 the verb 'Look up' and the resource 'Magic: The Gathering card by name', and lists the key data returned. It is specific enough to be distinguished from siblings like search_cards, but it does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, so differentiation relies on context.

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 phrase 'by name' implies when to use the tool (when you know a card name), but it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer search_cards, get_card_rulings, or other siblings. There is no when-not or condition-based routing.

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