card_comparison

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

Annotations declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world. Description adds context on data shown (mana cost, synergy, etc.) and required sources (Scryfall, Spellbook). No contradiction. Good behavioral transparency beyond annotations.

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?

Description is concise with three short sentences. First sentence immediately states the core purpose. No unnecessary words. Efficient.

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 purpose, output fields, and dependencies. For a tool without output schema, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what result to expect. However, it could mention formatting or error handling.

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 descriptions cover all 3 parameters completely. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the input schema. Therefore, parameter semantics is adequate but not enhanced.

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 compares 2-5 cards for a commander deck, listing the data points shown. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like commander_comparison and price_comparison.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like commander_comparison or price_comparison. It only states dependencies but no usage boundaries.

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