search_card_by_name

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose the default fuzzy-matching behavior, what happens on no match, rate limits, or return format. Naming the API source is a small plus but behavioral disclosure is thin.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb. Appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 lookup tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description should explain fuzzy matching and result behavior. It leaves the fuzzy param and matching semantics entirely unexplained.

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% and the description says nothing about the two parameters. Critically, the fuzzy parameter defaults to true and its semantics (substring/approximate matching) are never explained anywhere.

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 (MTG card by name), and names the data source (Scryfall API). It is distinguishable from get_card_by_id (lookup by ID) and search_cards (likely broader query), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the near-identical search_cards sibling.

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 guidance on when to use this versus search_cards or get_card_by_id. Given the presence of a very similar sibling search_cards, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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