search_cards

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.