search_cards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the search syntax and supports complex queries, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, response format details, pagination behavior beyond the 'page' parameter, or error handling. The description is insufficient for a tool with 12 parameters and no annotation coverage.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, and the second adds valuable context about query capabilities. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a search tool with this level of complexity and no structured behavioral annotations, the description should provide more complete 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'Scryfall search syntax' and 'complex queries with operators like color:, type:, set:, etc.', but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the structured schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('Search for') and resource ('Magic: The Gathering cards'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the search method ('using Scryfall search syntax'). It explicitly mentions what makes this tool unique among the sibling tools.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('Search for Magic: The Gathering cards using Scryfall search syntax'), but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies usage for complex queries but doesn't compare with siblings like 'get_card' or 'search_alternatives'.

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