card_collection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the rate-limit chunking, the exact return structure ({requested, found, not_found, data}), the importance of checking not_found, and the full:true switch for raw objects. It also clarifies that identifiers are exact-name strings (not fuzzy), adding precision. This is thorough behavioral transparency.

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?

Three well-organized sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and the alternative; the second covers the identifier formats and rate-limit handling; the third explains the return structure and the full parameter. No wasted words, and the key usage guidance is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return shape, the not_found field to check, and the full option. It also covers chunking and rate limits, which are critical for a batch tool. For a tool of this complexity, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the identifier object formats in a compact way and clarifying that names must be exact (not fuzzy), which is partially redundant with the schema but reinforces the nuance. It also explains the full parameter's effect on output, going beyond the schema's bare description. This justifies a 4.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Batch lookup of many cards in one call (POST /cards/collection)' and immediately differentiates it from the sibling card_named by saying 'use this for decklists instead of one card_named call per card.' This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does or how it differs from alternatives.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use this tool: 'use this for decklists' and contrasts with the alternative card_named. It also mentions the rate-limit chunking behavior, giving context on how long lists are handled. The guidance is clear and actionable.

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