search_cards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., pagination, response format) beyond mentioning search criteria.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is appropriately concise, though a bit more structure (e.g., mentioning default limit) could improve clarity.

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 complexity (7 parameters, output schema exists), the description is functional but minimal. It lacks details on how filters combine (AND/OR) and assumes the agent knows default behavior. The output schema covers return values, so completeness is adequate.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description merely echoes the parameter list without adding new semantic meaning, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 verb 'search' and the resource 'tarot cards', and lists example criteria like keywords, suit, and element. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as 'find_similar_cards' and 'get_random_cards' by being a general search tool.

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 usage for searching cards with filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_all_cards' or 'find_similar_cards'. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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