find_song_synergies

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it explains the Singer keyword rule, how the matching works, the grouping order (Singer-keyword characters first, then cost-outright characters), and the effect of passing a collection_csv (flagging owned copies). It also transparently notes that song_name is fuzzy-matched the same way as resolve_card, adding cross-tool 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear explanation of the matching logic and a structured Args list. It is somewhat dense due to the detailed Singer explanation, but every sentence contributes necessary context. The structure is logical and easy to scan.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and a moderately complex algorithm, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the singer matching rule, output grouping, each parameter's semantics, the optional CSV integration, and even references the fuzzy resolution behavior of a sibling tool. No significant missing context remains for correct invocation.

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 does so thoroughly. The Args section explains each of the 5 parameters (song_name, cost, colors, collection_csv, limit) with concrete examples and the mutual-exclusion constraint between song_name and cost. This goes far beyond the bare schema fields.

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: 'Find every Character that can sing a given song', clearly stating the tool's core function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_cards or lookup_card by focusing on song-character synergy and the Singer keyword mechanic. The detailed matching rule further clarifies the exact purpose.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to identify free-song Singer combos and discover which characters can sing a song. It also gives an explicit input constraint ('Provide either song_name ... or a raw cost threshold — not both') that acts as usage guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the specialized use case is evident.

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