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. It mentions 'bounded pagination' (adding behavioral context) but doesn't disclose if it's read-only, what happens to the returned data, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description adds some value beyond nothing.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It could be slightly longer to add param context, but it remains concise and front-loaded with the key action.

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?

With 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is too sparse. It leaves the agent guessing about param semantics, return structure (despite output schema existing), and behavioral boundaries.

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 mentions 'bounded pagination', hinting at limit/offset, but gives no meaning for query, type_contains, color_identity, or how they interact. This is insufficient for 5 parameters.

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 states it searches a card catalog with bounded pagination, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_library by mentioning 'verified local card catalog', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings.

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 pagination but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like search_library or load_collection_snapshot. No exclusion or alternative context is given.

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