conflict_eligible_cards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers richly: it discloses max_group_size sampling behavior, warns against equating UID counts with eligible cards, explains local bounding, single GET request behavior, forwarding of filters, 100-row/256 KiB limits, truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records. This exceeds the minimum and gives an agent realistic expectations.

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 description is front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, but then becomes dense with multiple caveats and technical limitations. It is not wasteful, but it is verbose and may overwhelm an agent scanning quickly. The structure is logical (purpose → behavioral details) but could be tightened.

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?

For a read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers many critical aspects: request semantics, pagination, size limits, error handling, and filter behavior. It hints at output fields (qty, total_cards) but does not fully describe the response structure. Given the complexity, it is quite complete but lacks explicit output format details.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining max_group_size's effect ('1 or 2 limited the UID sample') and clarifies the username is explicit. It also mentions 'Other declared filters' forwarded as supplied, though the schema only has two properties. This adds value beyond the schema, though it could be more explicit about value ranges.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('eligible card groups') for an explicit username, which is distinct enough from siblings like conflict_players or conflict_leaderboard. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast its scope, so it misses a point for direct differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies usage for a username but does not mention conditions, exclusions, or superior alternatives. An agent cannot tell whether this is the right tool for a given query beyond the obvious resource match.

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