bulk_format_search

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that results are sorted by EDHREC rank (most popular first) and that it combines format legality filtering with various optional constraints. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which are consistent.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes essential details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's functionality (combining filters, sorting) and provides enough context for an agent to understand its use. It could mention that results include card details, but the response_format parameter addresses verbosity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that the query is a natural language search for card name, type, or oracle text substring, and that optional filters include color identity, price, and rarity. This summarizes the parameter usage effectively.

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 that the tool searches for legal cards in a specific format using natural language, combining format legality filtering with name/type/text search and optional constraints. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bulk_card_search (which lacks format filtering) and bulk_format_legality (which likely only checks legality).

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 implicitly provides usage guidance by specifying that it searches for format-legal cards with search terms and filters. It contrasts with sibling tools like bulk_card_search (no format filter) and bulk_format_legality (just legality check), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives.

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