psa_cardfacts_checklist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the exact output contents (card name and printed number) and a notable edge case: number is empty for certain set types. This goes beyond a generic 'get checklist' statement, though it stops short of describing pagination or response structure.

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 sentences with no waste. The core action is front-loaded, the output contents and edge case are explained in the second sentence, and the parameter provenance is in the third. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what the tool returns, the one known output variation, and how to obtain the argument. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, though it omits details like response format or pagination that would push it to a 5.

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 the schema already describes set_id as 'Numeric set id, from a psa-cardfacts-sets result.' The description repeats nearly the same wording ('set_id is the numeric id from a psa-cardfacts-sets result'), adding no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a PSA CardFacts set's card checklist.' It also clarifies that it returns one set's full checklist with every card's name and printed number, distinguishing it from siblings that return sets or categories. The edge-case note about empty printed numbers adds precision.

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 tells the agent where to obtain the required set_id ('from a psa-cardfacts-sets result'), effectively chaining this tool after its sibling. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the single-parameter contract and sibling context make the intended use clear.

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