edhrec_recommendations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: cards already in a supplied decklist are removed so results are suggested adds, themes must come from the returned `themes` list, and each card reports inclusion % and synergy % with definitions. It omits auth, rate-limit, caching and pagination behavior, which are not obvious here.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and the four bullets each carry distinct information without repetition. The trailing sentence about inclusion % and synergy % is worthwhile, though the definition could be trimmed slightly without loss.

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?

The output schema covers the return shape, so the description need not explain results, and the card-metric sentence is a bonus. Against 7 parameters at 0% schema coverage and a meaningful `partner`/`per_list` surface, the missing semantics for those arguments is the main gap.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning, and it covers theme, budget, decklist and categories with useful detail (theme examples, 'budget'/'expensive' variants, tag names). It says nothing about partner, per_list (default 15), or the commander argument itself, leaving 3 of 7 parameters unexplained.

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 opening sentence states a specific resource (EDHREC recommendations for a commander) and enumerates what the result contains: high-synergy cards, top cards, and per-type lists. It is materially clearer than the bare tool name, but it never differentiates itself from the sibling edhrec_card, so an agent must guess which EDHREC tool to pick.

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 bullets explain what each option does (theme, budget variant, decklist subtraction, category restriction), which implies when to set each one. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like edhrec_card, analyze_deck, or search_cards, and no note on required inputs beyond the schema.

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