search_format_staples

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'find' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like, or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, data freshness). For a search tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this lack of behavioral context 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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does and the context, earning its place with zero waste.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and usage guidelines. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't compensate for missing annotations or output information, making it inadequate for full agent understanding.

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 fully documents all 6 parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a focus on competitive play, which aligns with the 'tier' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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: 'Find format staples, meta cards, and role-specific cards for competitive play.' It specifies the verb 'find' and the resources (staples, meta cards, role-specific cards), and mentions the context (competitive play). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_cards' or 'search_alternatives' beyond the competitive focus.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It implies usage for competitive play analysis but doesn't specify when to choose it over alternatives like 'search_cards' or 'find_synergistic_cards.' No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent with little context for tool selection.

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