resolve_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the tool's tolerance for typos, missing dashes, missing subtitles, and word order, and details the three possible return shapes (single match, top-3 list, no match). This gives the agent a complete understanding of what to expect.

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 efficient: a one-sentence summary, a brief behavior paragraph, a list of return shapes, and an Args block. Every sentence earns its place, and the format is easy for an agent to parse.

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 output schema exists, the description covers all necessary context: the tool's purpose, its behavior, when to use it (vs. lookup_card), and the possible outcomes including the no-match scenario. It is comprehensive for a fuzzy-matching lookup tool.

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?

The schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates fully. The Args section explains that `name` accepts informal, partial, or misspelled names, and `set_name` is an optional narrow with an example ('Wilds Unknown'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('informal, misspelled, or subtitle-less card name to specific card(s)'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from lookup_card by contrasting its tokenization and scoring approach with substring matching.

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?

It provides direct usage guidance: 'Use this when lookup_card fails or when you're not sure of a card's exact printed name.' This explicitly states when to use this tool and names the alternative (lookup_card), making the selection criteria clear.

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