browse_leaders

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.