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 does not disclose rate limits, pagination behavior, result limits, or return format, and 'using Scryfall's search API' only hints that external syntax/constraints apply without saying what they are.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is too thin for a tool whose main difficulty is query syntax and pagination. An agent cannot invoke it confidently from this text alone.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Scryfall's query language is the critical semantic here, and neither the description nor the schema explains syntax, operators, or what 'page' controls.

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 and resource ('Search for Magic: The Gathering cards') and names the backing API (Scryfall). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling search_card_by_name, leaving the agent to guess which search tool to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternative search_card_by_name or get_card_by_id. The agent gets no criteria for choosing among the several card-retrieval siblings.

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