swu_random_card

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. It only restates the core purpose and provides no details on randomness semantics, behavior on empty result sets, whether the operation has side effects, or how query+filters together form the search universe. This surpasses a tautology but fails to inform agents about important edge cases.

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, front-loaded sentence without any redundant wording. Every word contributes to the purpose, and the concise structure allows rapid comprehension.

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?

The description is minimal but not wholly inadequate. It clarifies the 'search result set' concept enough to suggest the query/filters relationship, and the detailed schema plus output schema cover return values. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral details that would make it fully complete for a tool with this complexity.

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 the query and filter parameters, including nested field meanings and examples. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the information.

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 a random Star Wars Unlimited card from a search result set. The verb 'return', resource 'random card', and scope 'from a search result set' are specific, distinguishing it from siblings like swu_draw_card. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when this tool is preferred over a standard 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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as swu_search_cards or swu_draw_card. The description implies usage for drawing a random card from a filtered set, but it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or recommend alternatives for other scenarios.

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