cards_max_land_pp

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive status. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those: the offline nature, the Chaos-baseline plus set-multiplier methodology, zero output for no_pp cards, and null output for unsupported foil/set combinations. It stops short of describing the output's exact shape or units.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by behavior and caveats. Every sentence contributes, though the closing file-reference sentence is only marginally useful to an agent that cannot open it.

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, and the description says null is returned in some cases but does not state the successful return type, units, or shape. Combined with the undocumented integer encodings for rarity and foil, an agent has enough to attempt the call but not enough to interpret it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning. It names the inputs and gives one useful rule (no_pp yields zero), and warns that a numeric edition cannot substitute for card_set. But the integer encodings for rarity (1–4) and foil (0–4) are never explained, leaving the most important parameter semantics opaque.

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 computed output (max-level base Land PP) for a specific resource (card_set, rarity, foil), which is clearly different from the land deed/resource/staking siblings. The abbreviation 'PP' is never expanded, so a reader must infer it, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 description implies this is an offline calculation and warns that certain inputs (foils 2–4, unmapped sets) return null, which is useful scoping. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus related card or land tools, and it does not state any alternatives.

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