Enriquecer catálogo (datos de combate)

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

The annotations already provide safety hints, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it is incremental, only processes pending cards unless force=true, uses cascading sources, may take minutes for the full catalog, and uses pending_total=0 as a completion signal. This goes well beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, incremental behavior, expansion guidance, source fallback, and completion signal are all covered without repetition. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then gives actionable usage detail.

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 moderately complex enrichment tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it. It covers the main parameters, the external data sources, the expected duration, and the completion signal, while the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters well (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by clarifying that force=true reprocesses already-enriched cards and that expansion is the recommended way to limit work during conversational use, though it does not add much about the 'limit' parameter.

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 action and resource: it downloads combat data (attacks, abilities, weaknesses, retreat cost, stage, trainer effects) from TCGdex for cards that lack it. It also distinguishes itself from a full catalog sync by explaining incremental behavior and the recommendation to use 'npm run sync' for the complete catalog.

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 when to use the tool ('recomendado para llamadas desde conversación' with an 'expansion' filter) and when not to (full catalog should be done via 'npm run sync' in the shell). It also explains the force parameter and the cascade fallback to Limitless TCG, leaving little ambiguity about invocation context.

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