ygo_compare_monthly_meta

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the result (risers, fallers, banlist impact), but says nothing about data source, whether the comparison is computed or cached, how missing months are handled, or whether the result is read-only (only implied by 'compare').

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 a parenthetical example and an output preview; every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, an example input, and the categories of result. It is nearly complete, falling short only on edge-case behavior (invalid or reversed months, empty comparisons) and on explicit sibling routing.

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% and already documents monthA, monthB (with YYYY-MM examples) and the format enum. The description's inline example '2026-10 vs 2026-11' simply restates the schema's format hint, adding no syntax, ordering, or format-interaction guidance beyond what structured data provides.

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 ('Compare') applied to a specific resource ('meta movement between two months'), which distinguishes it from the sibling ygo_get_monthly_meta that reports a single month. The output preview ('rising stars, falling decks and banlist impact') further pins down what this tool produces.

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 phrase 'between two months' implies the usage context (delta analysis rather than a single snapshot), but the description never explicitly names an alternative such as ygo_get_monthly_meta for single-month data or ygo_get_daily_meta for finer granularity. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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