search_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 of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the default scope (all cards) and the effect of owned_only, as well as the WUBRG encoding. However, it omits details like result format, pagination, or authentication requirements, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 concise, with two efficient sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds essential format hints without unnecessary information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the main search dimensions and provides key format hints. Minor gaps like the explicit meaning of 'type_contains' and the limit parameter are partially addressed by the schema's titles and defaults, making the description adequate overall.

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 adds crucial semantics for colors (WUBRG letters), set_code (3-letter set), and owned_only. However, it fails to explain limit and does not explicitly clarify the type_contains parameter, leaving some parameters underspecified.

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 identifies the tool as a card search with specific criteria (name, colors, rarity, set, type). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like owned_cards by the inclusion of an owned_only filter, implying a broader default search scope.

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?

Usage is implied through the description of search filters and the owned_only option, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as owned_cards or query_sql. The absence of alternative comparisons leaves the usage context somewhat implicit.

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