edhrec_card_synergy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and behavior. The description adds that the tool returns synergy comparisons and deck counts, but doesn't disclose potential error cases (e.g., invalid card/commander names) or data freshness. The description adds moderate contextual value 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no superfluous information. Every sentence adds value, making it concise and 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 tool has no output schema, so the description must explain the return value structure. It mentions synergy comparison and deck counts but is vague about the format (e.g., score, percentage, raw numbers). This leaves the agent guessing about the exact response shape, which is a significant gap for a tool without output schema.

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 both parameters are well-described in the schema. The description repeats the parameter roles without adding new semantic details (e.g., formatting requirements or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: getting synergy data between a specific card and commander. It explains what the data includes (synergy comparison to popularity and deck count), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools that focus on other aspects like staples or overviews.

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 needing synergy between a card and commander, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Sibling tools like commander_overview or bulk_card_search cover different purposes, but no direct comparison is given.

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