bulk_similar_cards

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds behavioral context by detailing similarity factors (shared keywords, type words, CMC proximity, oracle text overlap), which goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 are concise and front-loaded with purpose. The second sentence lists similarity factors efficiently. No wasted words, though it could benefit from a more structured format (e.g., bullet points).

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description adequately covers the core functionality and filtering options. However, it lacks details on the output format (e.g., structure of results) and what 'limit' affects beyond schema description.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description mentions filtering by format and price, but does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Describes the tool as finding similar cards based on specific criteria (keywords, type words, CMC, oracle text). The purpose is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'card_comparison' or 'build_around' that also deal with similarity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions optional filters, it does not indicate when not to use it or suggest other tools for different use cases (e.g., comparing two specific cards).

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