ygo_search_cards

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 discloses that the search hits a live pool rather than cached/memory data and hints that price sorting depends on a market index, but says nothing about result pagination, whether filtering is conjunctive, or what happens with zero matches for a 15-parameter query.

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 directive is correctly front-loaded in the first sentence, but the 'do not answer from memory' idea is stated twice in near-identical phrasing ('do not list candidate cards from memory' / 'Do not answer from memory; call this tool first'), which wastes roughly a quarter of an already short description.

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 15 all-optional parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the definition should say more about how filters combine, the default limit/ordering, and the shape of results. It covers the 'when' well but leaves an agent guessing on the 'how' for the tool's most complex invocation surface.

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 every parameter is already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's facet list (ATK, DEF, type, race, attribute, level, archetype, effect text) mirrors the schema rather than adding to it, and the two motivating examples ('most expensive Dragon', 'Spellcasters under $5') only illustrate combinations an agent can already read off 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?

States a specific verb+resource: search the live card pool by concrete facets (ATK, DEF, type, race, attribute, level, archetype, effect text) or for a price-ranked list. This is clearly more specific than a name-lookup sibling, but it never names the alternatives (ygo_get_card, ygo_market_query, ygo_check_prices) whose scope it partially overlaps.

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?

Explicit triggers ('USE THIS whenever the task is card discovery...') plus a strong negative instruction against answering from memory, which is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs. The gap is sibling disambiguation: a price question ('most expensive Dragon') sits between this tool, ygo_market_query and ygo_check_prices, and the description offers no tie-breaker.

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