archetype

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations don't: case-sensitive substring matching, inclusion of support cards via YGOProDeck tags or quoted text mentions, and card text returned only when the result is <= 60 cards unless include_text is set. That is real conditional-output disclosure. It stops short of 5 only because the returned structure is not characterized.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the core matching rule leads and the conditional output rule follows. Minor awkwardness in 'with status in `format`' slightly muddies an otherwise front-loaded, efficiently sized description.

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?

For a three-parameter read-only query tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description supplies the matching rule, the support-card behavior, and the conditional text-inclusion rule, leaving little an agent needs unknown. Only the shape of the response is unspecified, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 compensate, and it largely does: it explains `name` as a case-sensitive substring match, ties `format` to membership status, and explains that `include_text` overrides the small-result text-inclusion rule. Only the exact meaning of the `format` enum values is left to the 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 states a specific resource and scope: an archetype's members matched by case-sensitive substring on `name`, filtered by `format`, plus YGOProDeck support cards tagged with or naming it. An agent can tell this is an archetype-wide retrieval rather than a single-card lookup. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, keeping it just short of 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?

Usage is only implied: querying a whole archetype plus its support instead of a single card. There is no explicit 'use this instead of search_cards when...' routing, no prerequisites, and no statement of when not to use it, despite the sibling list containing search_cards and card_lookup.

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