Estadísticas de colección

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the result is a global aggregation rather than a per-item listing, but it does not disclose output format, ordering, or other operational behavior; given the strong annotations, this is adequate.

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 front-loads the core scope ('Resumen global de la colección del usuario') before listing breakdown dimensions, and the second sentence earns its place by giving usage guidance. There is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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 no parameters, rich read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description carries the responsibility of describing the result, and it does so comprehensively: unique counts, total copies, expansion, rarity, and usage context. The tool is simple enough that nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no input semantics to document. The description appropriately focuses on what the result contains instead of inventing parameter details, matching the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a global summary of the user's collection and enumerates the exact content: unique cards vs catalog total, total copies, expansion breakdown, and rarity breakdown. It lacks an explicit action verb, but it is still specific enough to distinguish from per-card and catalog-management siblings.

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 explicitly says this is the starting point for general 'how is my collection going' questions, giving the agent a clear usage trigger. It does not name alternatives or exclusions such as ptcgp_missing_cards or ptcgp_list_expansions, but the global-scope language helps disambiguate.

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