get_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It lacks disclosure about response format, error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes essential details about identification methods, making every word earn its place.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, how results are structured, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, the description should provide more complete operational context.

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 100%, providing detailed documentation for all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the three identification methods, which partially maps to the 'identifier' parameter. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context beyond what's already in 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 clearly states the action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('a specific Magic: The Gathering card'), specifying three distinct identification methods (name, set code+number, or Scryfall ID). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_cards (which returns multiple results) or get_card_prices (which focuses on pricing data).

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 implies usage by stating it retrieves information about 'a specific' card, suggesting it's for single-card lookup rather than batch operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_cards (for multiple cards) or batch_card_analysis, nor does it mention when not to use it (e.g., for price data).

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