Cartas faltantes / mejor sobre

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful traits on top: the descending sort by missing count, the exact return shape { packs: [...] }, the include_cards=false compact mode, and a subtle caveat that max_rarity ignores ☆/♕ because they drop via visual rarity rather than normal pack pulls. No contradiction with 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 tightly packed paragraphs (~90 words) with the core purpose front-loaded before filters and return format. Every sentence carries information: function, ordering, the answered question, filter caveat, return shape, and mode toggle — no filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description discloses the return shape, ordering, and the include_cards toggle, which largely compensates for the missing structured output. The remaining gaps are the undocumented limit_per_pack semantics and the absence of explicit sibling routing.

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 75% and the description adds value beyond it: for max_rarity it gives a concrete example ('d4') and explains why it omits stars, and for include_cards=false it clarifies the compact-ranking consequence. The only gap is limit_per_pack, which remains undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Analiza qué cartas faltan al usuario, agrupadas por sobre') and ties directly to a user decision ('qué sobre me conviene abrir'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ptcgp_collection_stats (overall stats) and ptcgp_search_cards (card search) because it defines the grouping, ordering, and the question it answers.

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?

Provides a clear use trigger: it directly answers 'which pack should I open', which tells an agent when to select this tool. However, it never names sibling tools or excludes adjacent cases (e.g., when to prefer ptcgp_collection_stats or ptcgp_search_cards), so the guidance is clear context without explicit when-not/alternatives.

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