List cards in a set

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint). The description adds genuinely new operational context — free-plan availability and a 1-unit cost — which is real value. It says nothing about pagination behavior even though page/page_size exist, so it stays at a 3.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and ordering, then use case, then the cost/plan constraint. Nothing is padded, though the constraint sentences are a bit clipped.

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 4-parameter read tool with no output schema and read-only annotations, the definition covers the essentials and hints at the return (card ids). It omits pagination semantics despite exposing page and page_size, which an agent must guess at.

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 75%: game, set_id and page_size are documented in the schema, while page is not. The description only implies set scoping and ordering and adds no format or paging detail, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the cards of one set') plus the ordering ('in number order'), which cleanly separates it from flipzi_list_sets and flipzi_get_card. It does not explicitly name the sibling it should be preferred over, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Use it to get card ids' gives one positive use case and the free-plan/cost note is useful context. There is no guidance on when to prefer flipzi_search_cards or flipzi_get_card instead, nor any prerequisite beyond the implied set_id.

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