get_deck

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait: include_types triggers extra requests and thus cost. It says nothing about failure modes for malformed ids, permissions, or rate limits, which leaves meaningful gaps for a network-backed fetch tool.

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?

Front-loaded single-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args block. Every sentence earns its place; the Args formatting is slightly stiff but not wasteful.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the tool is simple with only two parameters. Both parameters and the main cost tradeoff are covered; only error/edge-case behavior is absent.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must do the work, and it does: 'deck' accepts a full https://manapool.com/lists/<uuid> URL or the bare uuid, and 'include_types' resolves Scryfall type lines at extra request cost. This adds genuine meaning beyond the bare schema types, though it could say what happens if the id format is wrong.

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: 'Fetch one ManaPool deck'. The word 'one' implicitly separates it from the sibling search_decks, but it never names that sibling or states the distinction explicitly.

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?

Usage context is only implied by the request shape ('by URL or list id') and by the include_types note that it is 'useful for multi-type payoffs' but 'costs extra requests'. There is no explicit statement of when to reach for this instead of search_decks or audit_deck.

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