card_versions

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.