swu_rank_leader_pairs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exhaustive brewing over all legal pairings, the ranking formula (synergy + interaction density - off-aspect burden), and the effect of include_decks. It does not mention side effects or performance, but the tool appears read-only. The disclosure is substantial and goes beyond simple action naming.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core function, then parameter guidance, then a use case. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool has 8 optional parameters and a provided output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the main workflow and scoring, but it lacks explanations for half the parameters. Given the tool's complexity, this leaves notable gaps for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for all 8 parameters. It explains moral, primary_aspects, and include_decks, and indirectly references top_k. However, theme, base_name, only_owned, and format_name are left unexplained. This is insufficient for the agent to correctly use all 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's function: 'brew a deck for every legal leader pairing in your owned pool and rank them by composite score.' It names the specific verb (rank/brew), the resource (leader pairs), and the scope (Twin Suns, owned pool). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on card lookup, deck validation, or game actions.

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?

It provides clear context: 'Twin Suns only' sets the format restriction, and it describes how to narrow results with 'moral' and 'primary_aspects'. The use case 'surfacing leader pairs you wouldn't have considered manually' explains when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations to avoid, so it falls short of a 5.

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