search_combos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait beyond the schema: results are sorted by popularity. It says nothing about result limits beyond the default, pagination, or whether the search is case/format sensitive, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose first, then concrete examples. No filler. Slightly terse given the untyped query format, but well front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the query examples cover the hardest part of invocation. Gaps remain around sibling differentiation (find_combos) and the undocumented limit parameter, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 must compensate, and it does provide meaningful query-syntax examples (`card:"Thassa's Oracle"`, `result:"infinite mana" id<=bg`, `cards=2`). The limit parameter and the overall bounds/max of limit are left entirely undocumented.

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 clear verb+resource ('Search Commander Spellbook combos') plus ordering behavior ('most popular first'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling find_combos, which appears to be a plausibly overlapping combo-retrieval tool.

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 query-syntax examples imply how to use the tool but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no reference to find_combos or other siblings. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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