search_cards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds some behavioral context by mentioning the return format ('rich results with deckId, createdAt, updatedAt') and flags ('scannedCount and truncated flags'), which helps understand output behavior. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving gaps for a search tool.

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, stating the core functionality in the first sentence and adding output details in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating search inputs from output details for clarity.

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 complexity of a search tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and output format but lacks details on error cases, pagination, or how results are ordered. Without annotations, it should provide more behavioral context to fully guide an agent, leaving room for improvement.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it only mentions search criteria ('content, tags, or date') without explaining parameter interactions or usage nuances. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding significantly.

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: 'Search cards by content, tags, or date.' It specifies the resource (cards) and the search criteria, making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_cards_page' or 'get_cards', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_cards_page', 'get_cards', and 'find_deck_by_name', there's no indication of scenarios where 'search_cards' is preferred, such as for complex queries versus simple listing. This lack of comparative context leaves usage ambiguous.

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