Decklist de torneo (Limitless)

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context: it requires network access, reads the user's collection, reports per-card owned copies, and indicates which cards are missing. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 action and returns, then offers a compact example flow and the key dependency on network. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no filler or redundant restatement 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return semantics, and it does: per-card 'owned' counts, a 'buildable' summary, and missing-card details. It could be more explicit about error/edge cases like invalid slugs or stale collections, but for a read-only decklist helper the essential context is present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining that finish_index selects which tournament result to use and that 0 means the best recent finish, and by clarifying that slug comes from ptcgp_meta_decks.

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 names a specific verb ('Descarga') and resource ('decklist real de torneo para un arquetipo'), then explains it crosses that decklist with the user's collection to produce owned counts and a buildability summary. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like ptcgp_meta_decks, which supplies the slug, and ptcgp_missing_cards, which does not focus on tournament decklists.

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 gives an explicit example flow: ptcgp_meta_decks -> choose slug -> ptcgp_get_decklist(slug), and notes that network access is required. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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