search_decks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses important traits: bracket is an unverified generated tag, price filtering is done locally by walking pages, and a price window forces price-asc sorting. It does not discuss rate limits or permissions, but it covers the key operational quirks.

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 purpose is front-loaded, then each parameter is documented in a compact Args block with no wasted sentences. The length is justified by nine undocumented schema parameters and the critical behavioral caveats.

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?

The description is complete enough for a nine-parameter search tool: it documents filters, pagination, sorting interactions, and the local price-scan behavior, while the output schema covers return values. The main remaining gap is sibling-level routing guidance, which overlaps with usage guidelines.

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 document all nine parameters, and it does: commander, bracket, min_price, max_price, theme, colors, sort, page, and limit are each explained with examples, constraints, and interactions. It adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, including the price-basis and page-offset behavior.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: search ManaPool's pre-built Commander deck listings. It is clear what the tool does, but it only partially differentiates from siblings by referencing audit_deck, not get_deck or search_cards.

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?

It gives one useful routing hint: use audit_deck before recommending anything when relying on bracket. However, it does not explain when to choose search_decks over get_deck or search_cards, nor does it state when not to use it.

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