ygo_find_combos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the upstream data source, that results are read-only published combos with source URLs, and the returned shape (starting cards + ordered steps). It stops short of stating behavior on empty results, whether card and archetype can be combined, or any API rate/availability constraints.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the use case leads, followed by return shape, sibling routing, and a final anti-hallucination directive. The quoted question phrasing is slightly padded, but nearly every sentence carries routing or behavioral weight.

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 output schema, the description does supply a return-value sketch (starting cards, ordered steps, source URL) and the data provenance. Gaps remain around empty-result behavior and whether the two filters compose, which matter for a search tool with all-optional parameters.

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 three parameters are already documented, including the '300 newest public combos' scope for card and the 1-30 range for limit. The description only restates that filtering is 'by archetype or by a specific card', adding no meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 — returns structured combos (starting cards + ordered steps) from Master Duel Meta's public combo API — and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling ygo_find_synergy_and_combos ('derived from a list you already hold' vs 'published combos'). An agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('how does this deck combo / what is the line' questions needing real combo data), names the alternative and the condition that selects it (deck list already in hand → ygo_find_synergy_and_combos), and adds an exclusion ('does not invent them') plus a directive to call it before answering from memory.

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