psa_cardfacts_sets

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses that it lists sets and provides set_id for each, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention any additional fields, error behavior, pagination, or side effects. This is sufficient for a simple list tool but not fully transparent.

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 with no wasted words, front-loading the action and then providing key context about the return value and its downstream use. It is efficient and well-structured.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is fairly complete: it explains the purpose, the returned set_id, and how to use it. It lacks explicit mention of other possible return fields or limits, but that's not critical given the simplicity. The reference to psa-cardfacts-checklist provides necessary context for the workflow.

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% (category_id described as 'Category id, from psa-cardfacts-categories'). The description adds that it is used to list sets in a category, but this is already implied by the schema and the tool purpose. No extra semantic detail beyond what's in the schema.

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 lists PSA CardFacts sets in a category, with a specific verb and resource. It also explains that each set has a numeric set_id to pass to psa-cardfacts-checklist, distinguishing it from sibling tools like psa_cardfacts_categories and psa_cardfacts_checklist.

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?

It implies a usage chain: get category from psa-cardfacts-categories (mentioned in schema), then get sets with this tool, then pass set_id to psa-cardfacts-checklist. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or directly name the alternative tools for categories and checklists, though the chain is inferable.

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