search_cards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key non-obvious behavior: the search executes on Scryfall and each hit is then priced from ManaPool /products/singles, with the reason (no name search in ManaPool's public API). It does not cover failure modes such as cards with no ManaPool price, which is the remaining gap.

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 core action is front-loaded in one sentence, parameters are grouped in a compact Args block, and the final paragraph explains the two-stage pipeline in two lines. No sentence is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described; the description covers query format, limit bounds, and the data-source pipeline. Minor incompleteness remains around unpriced results and whether results are paginated.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: four concrete Scryfall query examples for `query` and an explicit 1-50 range for `limit` that the schema does not encode. It still doesn't clarify the default of 15 or what happens when limit is out of range.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search cards') plus a second behavior ('price them against ManaPool stock'), which distinguishes it from get_card (single card) and price_deck (whole deck). It does not explicitly name a sibling to route away from, keeping it just below a 5.

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 Scryfall syntax examples show how to phrase a query, which is real usage guidance for the main parameter. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_card or search_decks, nor any prerequisites or exclusions, so the when-to-use dimension is only implied.

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