Detalle de carta

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it explains that battle_data may be absent for very recent sets and that enrichment is needed in that case. This gives the agent realistic expectations about data availability.

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 the core purpose and then provides a compact list of included fields. The second sentence about battle_data is relevant and earns its place. It is slightly dense as one long sentence but remains efficiently organized.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists all major return fields, provides an id format example, and explains the special battle_data caveat with a remediation path. An agent can invoke this tool correctly and interpret the response without external information.

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 schema already fully documents the single card_id parameter with a pattern and description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example ('a1-036') and clarifies that the id refers to a card identifier, which helps the agent format the value correctly. This is useful but not essential given the schema's coverage.

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 states the tool's function: retrieving the complete details of a card by its id, and enumerates the exact fields returned (stats, attacks, abilities, weaknesses, evolution line, owned copies, image). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ptcgp_search_cards or ptcgp_list_expansions, which serve different lookup purposes.

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 makes clear this is the tool to use when you have a specific card id and want full card details. It also provides actionable guidance about the battle_data field and when to run ptcgp_enrich_catalog for very recent sets. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for cases where the id is unknown, so it falls just short of full usage differentiation.

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