ygo_matchup_planner

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does valuable work by disclosing output shape and, crucially, caveating that counter choices are 'role heuristics, not proven counters' — a quality/confidence signal an agent would not otherwise have. It omits data freshness, whether the tier list is fetched live at call time, and that all parameters are optional defaults.

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, zero filler, with the deliverable list front-loaded after the colon and the heuristic disclaimer placed last where it qualifies the whole output. Nothing could be cut without losing signal.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns — and it does, naming three distinct output components. With only three optional parameters and full schema coverage, the remaining gap is minor: it doesn't state data source, recency, or whether the plan assumes a specific banlist.

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 100%, so each of the three parameters is already documented. The description adds marginal meaning by tying 'format' to the 'format's staple pool' and implying sideSize drives the '15-card side skeleton', but no extra constraint or format-specific behavior is explained. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Turn the live tier list into a field plan') and enumerates the concrete artifacts produced: expected frequency by tops, top decks to prepare for, and a role-based 15-card side skeleton. An agent can tell this is a meta-analysis/planning tool rather than a raw lookup, though it never names a sibling (e.g. ygo_find_counters or ygo_build_meta_deck) to sharpen 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?

The phrase 'field plan' plus 'live tier list' implies tournament preparation usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no when-not guidance or named alternative. An agent must infer that specific counter lookups belong to ygo_find_counters and deck construction to ygo_build_meta_deck.

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