ygo_find_synergy_and_combos

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 does disclose the output shape ('output the combo line') and warns against fabricating search targets, which is useful. It says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what happens when the optional deck is omitted, or how searchers are detected, leaving real behavioral gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

The lead 'USE THIS' clause front-loads the trigger, and the tool's function follows immediately. The closing two sentences ('Do not invent search targets from memory' / 'Do not answer from memory; call this tool first') are near-duplicates and one could be cut without loss.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say more about what comes back beyond 'the combo line' — e.g. whether matched searchers and targets are listed separately. The nested filter object and the optional deck parameter also go underexplained. It is adequate for a mid-complexity lookup tool but not complete.

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 67%, so most filter fields are already documented in the schema. The description adds meaning to the deck parameter by framing it as 'your deck's existing searchers', which is genuinely helpful. It never mentions desiredPayoff (default 'disruption') or explains how multiple filter fields combine, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: find monsters/cards by concrete stats (with the example '1850 ATK Spellcaster'), match them against the deck's searchers, and output the combo line. That is far more concrete than the name alone. It does not, however, name the obvious overlapping siblings (ygo_search_cards, ygo_find_combos), so the agent must infer the boundary from the 'find a card that does X' framing.

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?

It states clear trigger phrasings ('find a card that does X', 'how do I search it') and adds a strong directive: do not answer from memory, call this tool first. What is missing is any when-not guidance or an explicit pointer to the sibling to use instead for plain card lookups or pre-built combo lists.

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