bulk_random_card

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true, but a random card tool is inherently non-idempotent—this is a contradiction. The description does not clarify that repeated calls yield different results or address any other behavioral traits (e.g., no mention of randomness seed or guarantees). The note about returning full card details in the same format as card_lookup adds context, but the contradiction undermines trust.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core action and optional filters are stated upfront. The return format reference is efficient. Perfectly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple random card tool, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, optional filters, and return format reference. Without an output schema, the link to card_lookup provides some context, though it assumes familiarity with that tool. A slightly more complete description could explicitly state that the result is a single card object.

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%, and the description lists the four filter parameters (format, color, type, rarity) already defined in the schema. It adds no additional meaning or usage details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for a high-coverage 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?

States 'Get a random Magic card' which is a specific verb and resource. The optional filters (format, color, type, rarity) are clearly listed, and the return format reference to card_lookup distinguishes it from other lookup tools. It is precise and 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 use when a random card is needed, and notes that filters are optional. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., bulk_card_lookup for specific cards). No context for comparison with sibling tools is given.

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