ygo_get_rulebook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses provenance (yugioh-card.com/en/rulebook/) and the important caveat that four topics are curated summaries rather than official text, which affects trust in the answer. It omits caching/latency behavior, what 'status' returns, output size for a full PDF read, and what happens when the download fails.

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 resource and citation format, then the topic grouping. The topic list partially repeats the enum, but the grouping into official versus curated is worth the words. No filler.

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 or annotations, so the description must carry the load, and it does describe the return form (verbatim text with printed page numbers). Given five parameters and nine topic modes, a few details are missing — notably what 'status' yields and the fallback when the PDF cannot be fetched — but the core contract is conveyed.

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 the schema already explains all five parameters, including the enum values and the role of page/term/query. The description adds only the official-versus-curated distinction across topic groups, which is modest incremental value and matches the baseline for high coverage.

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 resource (the official Konami rulebook PDF) and states the retrieval mode (verbatim text with printed page citations), which is far more informative than the bare tool name. It does not, however, explicitly separate itself from ruling-oriented siblings such as ygo_get_policy, ygo_wiki, or ygo_verify_ruling, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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: the enumeration of topic modes and the note that timing/damage_step/segoc/mechanics are curated rather than official tells the agent which mode yields authoritative text. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative for general ruling questions, so the agent must infer the routing.

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