resolve_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states that the tool returns full card data (stats, abilities, cost, etc.) for each candidate, requiring no follow-up. It gives an example resolution. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or that it performs no side effects. The behavioral disclosure is good but could be slightly more explicit.

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 front-loaded with purpose and includes structured bullet points for usage scenarios. Every sentence adds value, though it is slightly verbose. The example is helpful. Overall well-structured and efficient, but could be trimmed slightly without losing content.

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 (fuzzy name resolution), schema coverage 0%, and existence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context. It explains when to use it versus search_cards and what it returns. However, it lacks detail on the matching algorithm or confidence levels. The output schema covers return values, so description is mostly sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the 'query' parameter implicitly through examples (e.g., 'Maui Half Shark') but does not describe its format or constraints. The 'limit' parameter is not mentioned at all, despite having a default of 5. The description adds some meaning for query but insufficiently for both parameters.

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 resolves informal, partial, or misspelled card names to closest matching cards, returning full card data. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool search_cards, noting that when a specific card is named, resolve_card should be used instead to avoid failed searches. The verb 'resolve' and resource 'card name' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use scenarios: 'Tell me about X' -> use resolve_card directly; 'Find cards that synergize' -> resolve_card then search_cards; 'Build a deck' -> resolve_card then search_cards. It also gives a strong when-not-to-use: 'Never call search_cards first when the user has named a specific card.' This is comprehensive and prevents misuse.

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