swu_search_cards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type ('Returns a typed SearchResult') and implies a read-only search operation, but does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, whether it queries an external API, or how errors are handled. For a search tool, it is adequate but lacks depth.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and usage. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 search tool with moderate complexity, the description covers purpose and usage, and the output schema exists to document return values. It omits mention of limit/order/direction, but these are self-explanatory and fully described in the schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing the filter dimensions (aspect, type, arena, rarity, set, trait, numeric stats) and clarifying that free-text matching belongs to query, not filters. This helps the agent correctly choose between query and filter 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: 'Search Star Wars Unlimited cards' with specific verbs and a clear resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like swu_lookup_card (exact lookup) by emphasizing natural text and structured filters, and explicitly mentions the return type, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 guidance on how to use the tool: 'Pass query for free-text matching; use filters to constrain...' This is clear, actionable context. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, though the context strongly implies it is for broad searches rather than exact lookups.

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