metagame_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, so safety profile is clear. Description adds value by disclosing data sources (MTGGoldfish primary, Spicerack fallback) and output content, enhancing 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?

Three efficient sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then output contents, then data sources. No redundant information.

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 low parameter count, rich annotations, and read-only nature, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, output contents, and data sources. Missing minor details like pagination or response format behavior, but not required for this tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 100% (both 'format' and 'response_format' have descriptions). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'metagame breakdown for a competitive format', listing content (archetypes, shares, tier, prices). It distinguishes the tool's scope from siblings by specifying data sources but does not explicitly differentiate from related tools like goldfish_metagame or archetype_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 implies the tool is for obtaining a current metagame snapshot but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use context is given.

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