search_cards

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that, notably the default legality filter and the disclosure that card text is truncated to 400 characters unless full_text is set. It does not cover result ordering or the effect of limit, but the truncation and filtering notes are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Opens with the core purpose in one sentence, then a compact parameter glossary with a worked example per non-obvious field. Every line earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 17-parameter tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the semantic coverage is strong and the search-syntax nuances are explicit. The main gap is silent handling of limit (default 20) and count/ordering behavior, which the agent must infer.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 17 parameters, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it explains text as FTS5 syntax, pattern as Python regex, name as substring, archetype as case-sensitive name containment, mentions as quoted-name references, kind/attribute/race vocabularies, and level/rank/link semantics for level_min/max. Only limit, atk_max, and def_max are left undocumented, and the depth it provides on the ambiguous filters far exceeds what a schema could convey.

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 and resource ('Search the card pool') and immediately scopes the default result set to cards legal in the given format. This distinguishes it from siblings like card_lookup (single card retrieval) and archetype without needing to inspect schemas.

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 conveys an important default behavior (illegal cards excluded unless include_illegal) but never states when an agent should choose this tool over card_lookup, find_lines, or archetype, nor does it describe any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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