search_cards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden. It clearly declares 'read-only' for a search operation and warns against parallel usage. It doesn't describe return details or rate limits, but the availability of an output schema and the simple read-only scope mitigate the need for more.

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-packed and extremely lean: a clear purpose line, an alternative command, and a concurrency warning. Every word earns its place without 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?

Even with no annotations, the description gives the agent everything needed to select and invoke the tool: purpose, alternative when to use others, concurrency restriction, and the parameter semantics are fully covered by the schema. The output schema existence further removes ambiguity about the return type.

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 parameters are already well documented with examples and defaults. The phrase 'verbs, tags, text' lightly reinforces the query intent but doesn't add new meaning beyond the schema's own examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('notes'), and explicitly scopes the purpose to targeted lookups by verbs, tags, or text. It also differentiates itself from the sibling by naming list_deck_cards as the alternative for full deck walkthroughs.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (targeted lookups) versus a clear alternative (list_deck_cards for full deck walkthroughs). The additional constraint 'Never call in parallel with other tools' provides a decisive usage rule. This leaves little ambiguity about selection or invocation context.

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