find_counters

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.