scryfall_set_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description need not repeat these. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., no mention of rate limits, data freshness, or return structure). It is adequate but does not exceed the baseline set by 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and required input.

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 simple one-parameter tool with comprehensive annotations and no output schema, the description is almost sufficient. It explicitly states the action and input. However, it could hint at the output shape (e.g., 'returns set name, release date, etc.') to be fully complete, though not strictly required.

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% (the only parameter, set_code, has a clear description with examples). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond confirming that the set code is used. 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource 'metadata for a Magic set' and the method 'by its code'. It is distinct from sibling tools like scryfall_search_cards which search for cards, making this tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as scryfall_search_cards or scryfall_card_details. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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