ygo_find_community_decks

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the return shape (canonical page URL plus ydke:// link) and that results are chainable into legality/cost/consistency/optimize tools. It does not cover rate limits, auth needs, multi-source merge/paging behavior, or what an empty result looks like, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, then sources, then return values, then chaining, then the anti-hallucination rule – a sensible priority order. The parenthetical example list is slightly long but each sentence contributes a distinct instruction.

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 an 18-parameter, output-schema-less retrieval tool, the description covers intent, sources, return shape, and downstream chaining well. Remaining gaps are operational: how sources are combined, default source when ambiguous, and pagination interaction between the offset/limit and multiple backends.

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% across 18 parameters, so the schema already explains dates, sort, limit, format, category, price bounds and so on. The description adds almost no parameter-level detail beyond naming the sources, so the baseline 3 applies – it neither compensates for nor extends the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific trigger verb and resource: 'USE THIS when the user wants real decklists that other people published,' and names the concrete sources (YGOPRODeck, Master Duel Meta, Konami Neuron). It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like ygo_build_meta_deck or ygo_parse_deck, which build/parse rather than retrieve published lists.

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 explicit user phrasings that should route here ('show me decks for an archetype', 'a tournament list', 'official Konami recipe') and states the downstream tools the result feeds into. It also sets a hard exclusion: 'Do not answer from memory; call this tool first' and 'Never invent a community deck or a deck URL.'

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