enrich_csv

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It pays off by disclosing external API calls (LorcanaJSON, lorcana-api.com), output file creation, cache behavior, and price overwrite behavior. It stops short of mentioning rate limits, network requirements, or error handling, but the disclosed traits are substantial and accurate, a minor gap prevents a 5.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a one-sentence summary, a compact list of output files, then an Args section. No redundant words; each sentence adds information about the tool's operation or parameters, maintaining conciseness without sacrificing detail.

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 complexity (3 parameters, external API calls, file outputs) and the existence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is complete. It covers inputs, behavior, output file naming, and parameter semantics, providing an agent with enough context to select and invoke it correctly without ambiguity.

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%, and the description compensates fully. Each parameter gets a clear, purpose-driven explanation: input_path (absolute path to raw export), cache_path (speeds re-runs by skipping API calls), refresh_prices (overwrites with live tcgcsv lookup). This goes far beyond the schema's bare names and types, meeting the high need.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Enrich a raw TCGPlayer Lorcana CSV export with full card data.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like lookup_card or filter_collection by focusing on file transformation with API enrichment, and lists added fields and output files, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies the primary use case (processing a raw TCGPlayer export) and explains optional parameters for re-runs (cache_path) and price refreshing (refresh_prices). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare with alternatives like audit_csv, so it lacks explicit exclusions, though context is strong.

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