get_random_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'random' without explaining the nature of randomness, rate limits, or any side effects. This is minimal for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

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 this simple tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context to understand its function. It could optionally mention that it returns card objects, but the absence is not critical.

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 100% (the 'count' parameter is fully documented). The description adds 'one or more', which aligns with the schema but does not provide significant new meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 verb 'Get', the object 'random Magic: The Gathering cards', and the scope 'one or more'. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like 'get_card_details' (for specific cards) and 'search_cards' (for filtered searches).

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 implies usage for random card generation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or specific context cues are provided.

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