ygo_deck_cost

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

With no annotations at all, the description still discloses meaningful behavior: pricing is bounded by unique-card count and time, partial results are marked instead of fabricating prices, and no FX or shipping is applied. What it never states is that this is a read-only operation or what happens when a card cannot be found in any market.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the caveats. Every clause carries information: markets compared, output shown, and the partial/no-FX/no-shipping constraints.

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 four-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers the pricing scope, the comparison logic, and the degradation behavior. It is only slightly thin on the shape of the returned data and on failure cases for individual cards.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description hints at the maxCards bound ('bounded number of unique cards') and the partial-result behavior, but adds nothing about the cards-vs-input alternative or the time budget that the schema does not already say.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Price a whole deck') and scopes it to three named markets (TCGPlayer / Yuyu-tei / TCGCorner), which is enough to separate it from per-card pricing siblings. It stops short of naming ygo_check_prices or ygo_market_query explicitly, so the sibling differentiation is implied by 'whole deck' rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for bulk deck valuation rather than single-card lookups, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are given. There is no guidance on choosing it over ygo_check_prices or ygo_card_printing_prices.

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