search_cards

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses some behavior (order='edhrec' sorts by Commander popularity, detail='full' includes oracle text), but omits limit defaults, pagination, result scope, and rate-limit/auth considerations.

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 purpose is front-loaded, examples are compact, and supplemental notes are brief. The syntax URL is long but earns its place by providing the full query language reference.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description gives strong query-syntax guidance. However, because schema descriptions are 0% and annotations are absent, it is incomplete for limit/direction semantics and sibling selection.

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% across 5 parameters. The description meaningfully explains the query parameter's syntax and gives examples, and partially covers order and detail, but limit and direction are entirely undocumented, including their defaults and effects.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search cards') and identifies the supported syntax family ('full Scryfall syntax'). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_card or autocomplete_card_name, so it is clear but lacks sibling routing.

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?

Examples and notes imply how to search, and mentions of order='edhrec' and detail='full' give useful context. However, it never says when to use this tool versus get_card, autocomplete_card_name, or random_card, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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