moxfield_search_decks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, clearly signaling safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the output format (paginated deck summaries with fields like name, format, author) and that it searches public decks, complementing the annotations with concrete behavioral details.

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 three concise sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the purpose, then lists the output fields. Every sentence adds value, including the pagination mention and field enumeration.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (5 optional params, fully documented schema, and annotations), the description provides a complete mental model: what the tool searches, what it returns (paginated list with key fields), and the filtering dimensions. No output schema exists, but the description covers return values adequately for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema itself documents all 5 parameters. The description restates 'format, keyword, or sort order' but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. 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 the tool searches public Moxfield decks by format, keyword, or sort order, and specifies the returned fields (name, format, author, colors, card counts). It distinguishes from sibling Moxfield tools like moxfield_deck_info and moxfield_user_decks by focusing on search across all public decks.

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 use for finding decks on Moxfield but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., moxfield_user_decks for a specific user). No when-not or exclusion criteria are given, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names.

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