hearthstone-decks-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions '支持模糊搜索' (supports fuzzy search) in the schema, but the description itself doesn't elaborate on this or other behaviors like response format, error handling, or rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates beyond basic functionality.

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 a single, efficient sentence: '根据卡牌名称搜索炉石传说卡牌信息' (Search for Hearthstone card information by card name). It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple search tool. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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's moderate complexity (search functionality with fuzzy matching) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., card details, IDs, or partial matches), how results are ordered, or any limitations. Without an output schema, the description should provide more context about the response to help the agent use the tool effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters: 'cardName' (with fuzzy search support) and 'limit' (with default and range). The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of fuzzy search behavior or context for the limit parameter. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 purpose: '根据卡牌名称搜索炉石传说卡牌信息' (Search for Hearthstone card information by card name). It specifies the verb ('搜索' - search), resource ('炉石传说卡牌信息' - Hearthstone card information), and key input ('卡牌名称' - card name). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_card_info' or 'parse_deck_code', which likely have different 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_card_info' (which might retrieve specific card details) or 'parse_deck_code' (which likely handles deck codes). There's no context about when this search tool is preferred over other methods or any prerequisites for its use.

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