validate_brawl_commander

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 without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention error handling, response format, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'validate'). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose with zero waste. Every word earns its place - 'validate', 'card', 'legal commander', and 'Brawl or Standard Brawl formats' are all essential information.

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 validation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'legal commander', what the validation criteria are, what the response looks like, or error conditions. The description should provide more context given the lack of structured metadata.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain validation logic, format differences, or provide examples. 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 specific action ('validate') and resource ('card') with precise context ('legal commander in Brawl or Standard Brawl formats'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_card' or 'search_cards' by focusing on format legality validation rather than retrieval or search.

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 when checking commander legality, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'query_rules' or 'search_format_staples'. It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or comparisons with sibling tools.

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