Search cards by name

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

Annotations declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, so the safety bar is already met; the description goes further with the matching algorithm, the plan gate (free plan) and a per-call cost of 1 unit, which is real operational information. It does not describe result shape beyond "card ids" or paging behavior.

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?

Four short, front-loaded fragments: purpose, matching rule, downstream dependency, plan/cost. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant facts come first.

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 read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, matching behavior, workflow dependency and cost, and the schema covers the parameters. Only the return shape beyond "card ids" and pagination expectations (page/page_size) are left implicit, which is a minor gap.

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 71% and the schema documents q, game, lang, number and page_size. The description adds the one non-obvious rule — last-word prefix matching for q — that the schema omits, which is exactly the kind of extra the description should carry at this coverage level.

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?

"Searches cards by name" is a specific verb+resource, and the parenthetical "(last word prefix-matched)" pins down the matching semantics precisely. It also signals its place in the workflow ("Returns card ids needed by every price tool"), which implicitly separates it from price/history siblings, though it never names a sibling like flipzi_get_card to differentiate lookup-by-id.

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?

Gives clear context for when to reach for it — it is the id-acquisition step that precedes every price tool — plus the constraint that it is on the free plan at a cost of 1 unit. No explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g. use get_card when the id is already known), so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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