Search Riftbound cards

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: filters combine with AND, every filter is optional so an empty call lists all cards, and results are printings rather than game cards, with the underlying card nested under `card`. It does not mention pagination metadata or rate/latency behavior, so it stops short of 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?

Front-loads purpose, then filters, then Args, then Examples, then the don't-use case. The Args block largely restates the schema, which is some duplication, but the example section is high-value and the whole thing stays scannable.

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 25-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers result shape (printing + nested card), pagination limits, default response format, and failure mode routing to the sibling. Minor gap: no detail on what pagination/total metadata the response carries, but the essential call-correctness information is present.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by grouping parameters into semantic families (free-text vs single-field, multi-value filters, numeric ranges, sort/dir, page/limit, response_format) and by tying natural-language questions to concrete parameter combinations in the examples, which the schema alone does not convey.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Search the Piltover Archive database of Riftbound trading card game cards') and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling piltover_get_cards, which handles exact IDs/collector numbers. The scope note that Riftbound data is absent from training data makes the tool's role 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('use this tool rather than answering from memory whenever a specific card, cost, rules text or price is involved') and explicit when-not-to-use with the named alternative ('you already have exact collector numbers or IDs — use piltover_get_cards, which is one request instead of many'). Both the trigger and the exclusion are stated.

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