draft_card_ratings

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the data skew from 17Lands (56% baseline) and reliability warning for <500 games. This enhances 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?

The description is extremely concise with three sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second lists key metrics, and the third adds a crucial data quality note. No wasted words.

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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by explaining returned metrics and data caveats. It covers the main aspects needed for understanding tool output, though pagination or error handling are not mentioned.

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 explains the meaning of the returned metrics (GIH WR, ALSA, etc.) which are not in the schema, adding substantial value for interpreting results.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'win rate and draft performance data for cards in a set.' This is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings like tournament results or combo browsing.

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?

While explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are absent, the description provides context about metrics and data reliability, which guides appropriate use. It's clear enough to infer the tool is for draft card performance analysis, distinguishing it from general search or game data tools.

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