search_cards

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

Even though no annotations are provided, the description discloses non-obvious behavior: all filters are ANDed except colors (which are ORed), colors and ability_text are case-insensitive, cost bounds are inclusive, and limit is capped at 200. This goes beyond the raw schema by explaining query semantics, though it omits error handling and auth/permission notes.

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 concise and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, a brief note on filter combination, then a clean Args list. Each parameter gets a single informative line with no redundancy. The structure is easy to scan and appropriately sized for 11 parameters.

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 11 parameters, zero schema descriptions, and an output schema present, the description covers all necessary context: full parameter semantics, filter logic, examples, and pagination details. It does not need to describe return values since the output schema exists, but it could benefit from a note on alternative tools, which is a separate dimension.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by documenting every one of the 11 parameters: types, defaults, valid enum values for card_type and rarity, examples, and specific behavior like 'Pass -1 for no minimum/maximum'. This is exemplary parameter-level guidance.

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+resource: 'Search the full Lorcana card pool by any combination of filters.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like filter_collection (which presumably filters a collection) and lookup_card (which likely fetches a single card). The scope is explicit and unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention 'use this when you need broad search' or contrast with lookup_card/resolve_card. The filter combination explanation implies usage but does not guide selection among siblings.

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