search-credit-cards

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 but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., list of cards, details), whether results are paginated, if authentication is required, or any rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured as a single sentence in both English and Spanish, front-loading the core purpose and filtering criteria without unnecessary details. However, the bilingual repetition slightly reduces conciseness, though it may serve localization purposes.

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 (search with two optional filters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details like return format, error handling, or usage context, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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 both parameters ('network' with enum values and 'maxAnnualFee' with numeric constraints). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as how filtering logic works or parameter interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Search available credit cards'), resource ('in Uruguay'), and scope ('Filter by payment network and maximum annual fee'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get-card-details' or 'compare-loans'. The bilingual format reinforces the purpose without redundancy.

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 searching credit cards with filtering capabilities, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-card-details' or 'compare-loans'. No guidance is provided on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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