commander_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by noting graceful degradation when optional sources are unavailable, which is a behavioral trait beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences efficiently convey purpose, contents, and a key behavioral note (graceful degradation). No redundancy, 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 tool with no output schema, the description lists the main categories returned (card details, combos, staples, synergy scores). This provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the output, though more detail on structure would be beneficial.

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 both parameters are already described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, so baseline 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?

The description clearly states it provides a 'comprehensive commander profile' combining multiple data sources, listing specific outputs (card details, combos, staples, synergy scores). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on single aspects (e.g., edhrec_commander_staples, spellbook_find_combos).

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 usage when a broad overview is needed, contrasting with single-source tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the context of 'combining all available sources' offers implicit guidance.

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