random_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the query is optional and gives a Scryfall query example, but omits key behavioral details such as authentication needs, rate limits, or handling of empty results, leaving the agent with incomplete operational context.

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 that states the core purpose and optional restriction without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simplicity, one optional parameter, and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the what and the parameter's role, though the absence of usage guidance leaves a minor 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does this effectively by explaining that the parameter is an optional Scryfall query and by providing an example ('is:commander id:ur'), which adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. Some syntax coverage is still missing, preventing a 5.

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 identifies the resource ('A random card') and its optional scope ('restricted by a Scryfall query'), distinguishing it from siblings like search_cards or get_card by emphasizing randomness. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_cards or get_card. While the purpose implies usage, there is no explicit context, condition, or exclusion to help an agent select it.

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