owned_cards

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 'owned count >= 1' filtering behavior, which is useful. However, it does not mention other traits like pagination, default limit behavior, or read-only nature beyond the implied 'List' action. It adds some context but not rich behavioral detail.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key filter reference. Every word is useful, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the simple list operation and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is listed and the filter inheritance. It could be more complete by mentioning limit behavior or output formatting, but the schema and tool name fill in many gaps. Overall, it is sufficient for 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'same optional filters as search_cards' without explaining any parameter or its semantics. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value for understanding their usage or constraints.

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 lists cards the player owns, with a specific condition (owned count >= 1) and references the same filters as search_cards. This distinguishes it from search_cards (which likely searches all cards) and conveys a concrete action on a specific resource.

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 when to use this tool (when you need owned cards) and references search_cards for filter behavior, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name direct alternatives, 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.