search_cards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose the key behavioral trait of accepting Scryfall syntax and provides concrete examples. However, it does not describe what the result list contains, error behavior for invalid queries, or whether this is an external read-only API call.

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: the first states the purpose and the second packs in high-signal examples. There is no repetition of schema details, no filler, and no wasted words.

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 description covers the search behavior and query syntax well, which is adequate for a straightforward search tool. Yet with no output schema, no annotations, and no sibling differentiation, the agent still lacks full context about expected return shape and when to prefer this tool over related ones.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by offering three distinct Scryfall query examples involving type, color identity, mana value, oracle text, set, and rarity, which go beyond the schema's single example.

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 tool's function: 'Search for Magic: The Gathering cards using Scryfall syntax.' It names a specific verb and resource, and the examples reinforce the purpose. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like find_synergies or find_similar, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_card, find_synergies, or find_similar. It does not mention exclusions, alternatives, or conditions that would help an agent route between the sibling tools.

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