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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't reveal important behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the analysis output takes. The description is functional but lacks operational context.

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 - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and three specific outputs. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text or redundancy.

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 single-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does but lacks completeness about the analysis output format, potential limitations, or how results are structured. It's minimally viable but leaves important contextual gaps.

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% for the single parameter 'deck_list', so the schema already documents the parameter fully. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 analyzes cost curves for a specific resource (One Piece TCG deck lists) and specifies three outputs: cost distribution, color breakdown, and card type spread. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'browse_sets' or 'search_cards' which might also provide deck-related information.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'search_cards' or 'find_counters' that might also handle deck analysis.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering by color but doesn't describe other behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, error handling). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized with two concise sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and usage without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter use but fails to address key aspects like output format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints (e.g., whether it returns all leaders or a subset). For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, more detail is needed.

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 description adds meaning by explaining that the 'color' parameter is used to filter for leaders of a specific deck color, which provides context beyond the schema's enum-like list. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the parameter well, so the description only offers marginal additional value.

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 action ('Browse all') and resource ('One Piece TCG Leader cards'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'browse_sets' or 'search_cards' beyond mentioning 'Leader cards', which is a specific subset but not a direct comparison.

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 filtering by color to find leaders for specific deck colors, providing some context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_cards' or 'find_counters', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving gaps in guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool's modes but fails to describe key traits such as whether it's read-only or has side effects, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or the format of returned data (e.g., pagination, error handling). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely and effectively.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's dual functionality without any redundant or unnecessary information. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear, direct language, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with two parameters and dual functionality. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., set lists with card counts, card details), potential errors, or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively in complex scenarios.

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%, meaning the input schema fully documents both parameters ('set_name' and 'limit') with descriptions, types, and constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by hinting at the dual functionality based on 'set_name', but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 function with specific verbs ('browse', 'list', 'view') and resources ('One Piece TCG sets', 'cards'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'search_cards' or 'card_versions', which might also involve card or set data, so it misses the highest score.

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 by mentioning two modes: listing all sets or viewing cards in a specific set, based on whether 'set_name' is provided. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_cards' or 'card_versions', and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool does (show versions) but lacks details on behavioral traits such as response format (e.g., list of objects, pagination), error handling (e.g., if no matches found), performance (e.g., speed, rate limits), or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with the tool effectively.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds key usage information. Both sentences earn their place by conveying essential details without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse for an agent.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., output structure, error cases) and doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema. This makes it adequate as a minimum viable description but with clear gaps in context.

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%, with clear descriptions for 'card_name' and 'card_number' parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating the search methods ('Search by card name or card number') without providing additional semantics like examples beyond those in the schema or usage nuances. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra insight is offered.

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: 'Show all printings/versions of a One Piece TCG card, including alternate art variants.' It specifies the verb ('Show') and resource ('printings/versions of a One Piece TCG card'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_cards' by focusing on versions rather than general search. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'browse_sets' or 'browse_leaders', which might also involve card data, keeping it at 4.

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 by stating 'Search by card name or card number,' which suggests when to use this tool (for looking up card versions) and provides basic input methods. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_cards' (e.g., for general card info vs. specific versions) or 'browse_sets' (e.g., for set-level data), and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, making it only implied usage.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool is 'useful for building defensive deck strategies' which adds some behavioral context, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when no cards match. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 appropriately concise with three sentences. Each sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage context, and the third mentions filtering capabilities. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 3 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and usage context. However, for a tool that presumably returns card data, the lack of output schema means the description should ideally mention what information is returned (e.g., card names, counter values, etc.). The description is adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 thoroughly. The description mentions 'Filter by color and cost' which aligns with the schema but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Find One Piece TCG cards with counter values.' It specifies the resource (cards) and verb (find), and mentions the domain context (One Piece TCG). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_cards' or 'card_versions' beyond the 'counter values' focus.

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 some usage context: 'Useful for building defensive deck strategies' implies when to use it. It mentions filtering by color and cost, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_cards' or when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'returns card details with effects' but doesn't cover pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit parameters), error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is insufficient for a 15-parameter search tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. It could be slightly more structured by separating search criteria from return value, but it wastes no words and communicates the essential purpose immediately.

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 complex search tool with 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain result format, pagination strategy, error handling, or how multiple parameters interact. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema for parameter details with no behavioral guidance.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description lists searchable fields (name, color, type, cost, power, rarity, attribute, character type, set) which aligns with parameters in the schema, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already documented in the parameter descriptions.

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 searches for One Piece TCG cards by multiple criteria and returns details with effects, providing a specific verb ('search') and resource ('One Piece TCG cards'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browse_leaders' or 'card_versions'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'browse_leaders' or 'card_versions'. It lists searchable fields but offers no context about when this comprehensive search is preferable to more specialized sibling tools.

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