Buscar cartas

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that results include owned quantity, max_damage, and has_ability. It also warns that combat data comes from TCGdex and may be missing for recent sets, pointing to enrichment. This is substantive behavioral context that helps an agent anticipate incomplete results.

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 long but every line earns its place: summary, structured filter list, cross-references, data caveat, and usage examples. It is well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool has 14 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is unusually complete. It explains what filters do, what results contain, how to get more detail, and when data may be incomplete. An agent can select and invoke this tool correctly with confidence.

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?

With schema coverage at 64%, the description compensates thoroughly: it explains query case-insensitivity, text_search semantics with examples, expansion ID lists, rarity aliases, owned_filter values with quantities, and min_damage's deck-building purpose. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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: 'Busca cartas en el catálogo completo de Pokémon TCG Pocket', and explicitly states the output includes owned quantity. It also differentiates itself from siblings by directing users to ptcgp_get_card for full attack/ability details and ptcgp_enrich_catalog for stale combat data.

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 strong usage context: all filters are optional and combinable, and it provides natural-language examples such as 'type=Fire, min_damage=100, owned_filter=owned'. It explicitly names alternatives for full card details and catalog enrichment, though it does not fully contrast with every potentially relevant sibling like ptcgp_collection_stats or ptcgp_missing_cards.

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