Listar expansiones

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

The annotations already declare safe read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds value beyond that by specifying exactly what the result contains: expansions, their packs, and per-expansion collection progress (total cards, unique owned, percentage). It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The first states the core behavior and output details; the second adds practical usage context. Every sentence contributes value.

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 appropriately carries the burden of describing return content, which it does by naming expansions, packs, and the three progress metrics. For a parameterless read-only listing tool with rich annotations, nothing essential 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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, a 4 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Lista todas las expansiones del juego', which clearly states both the action and the target. It adds concrete detail about the contents (sobres, total de cartas, poseídas únicas, porcentaje) that distinguishes it from sibling card- and collection-stat tools.

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?

It explicitly identifies when to use the tool: 'Útil como visión general o para decidir en qué set centrarse'. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion cases, so it falls just short of the full 5, but the stated use cases are clear and actionable.

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