Search Riftbound decks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: it states the return shape (deck summaries with a deck ID), the pagination limit (max 100), and the default response format.

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-loaded purpose sentence, then tight Args list and two concrete examples. Every line earns its place and the format is 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating what comes back (deck summaries, deck ID) and where to go next. Pagination, defaults, and sort semantics are all covered, so an agent has enough to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: q is explained to span deck name, description AND legend name, so a champion query finds decks even when the title omits it. It also clarifies sort/dir pairing and what response_format is for.

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 specific verb (Search) and resource (public decklists on Piltover Archive), and adds the intent behind it (seeing how a champion/archetype is built). It also differentiates from the sibling piltover_get_deck by explaining it returns summaries whose deck ID feeds that tool.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it ('see how a champion or archetype is actually built, what the community is playing right now') and explicit example query->arg mappings. It routes to piltover_get_deck for the full card list, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from piltover_search_cards.

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