Browse Franchise

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must communicate all behavioral traits. It discloses the two operational modes and implies a read-only browsing action. It does not mention any destructive side effects or limits, which is acceptable given the nature of browsing.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences to convey the tool's full purpose and usage. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently covers both invocation patterns.

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 absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's functionality for an agent. It clarifies the dual behavior and parameter usage, though it could briefly hint at the nature of 'statistics' or 'cards' output.

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?

The input schema describes the franchise parameter briefly. The description adds meaningful context: omitting the parameter lists all franchises, while providing it shows cards and statistics. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's description.

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 tool's purpose: browsing Disney Lorcana cards by franchise. It distinguishes two behaviors: listing all franchises with card counts when no name is given, and showing cards and statistics with a specific name. This differentiates it from sibling tools like analyze_ink_curve or browse_sets.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to omit or provide the franchise parameter, covering both use cases. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives like search_cards.

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