swu_owned_count

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, and it does convey a read-only query behavior via 'Return how many copies.' However, it does not mention edge cases such as how unowned cards are handled or whether invalid inputs produce errors, leaving some uncertainty.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences with no filler. The first clearly states the purpose, and the second provides a useful usage example, making every word valuable.

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?

As a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the basic usage but omits important context like error behavior and zero-count results. It is adequate for straightforward use but not fully comprehensive for all scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a concrete example ('LOF 47') for set_code and card_number, adding format guidance. Yet it does not explain the meaning of each parameter or how they combine beyond the example, which is somewhat limited.

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 function: returning the count of owned copies for a specific Star Wars Unlimited printing. The phrase 'Return how many copies... the user owns' is a specific verb+resource, and the example 'LOF 47' clarifies the intended input format, distinguishing it from sibling tools like swu_list_collection.

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 a user needs to know ownership counts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or references to other tools are given, so guidance is minimal.

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