deck_analysis

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

Annotations already indicate safe read/idempotent/open world; description adds rich behavioral detail: backend sources (Scryfall, Spellbook, EDHREC) and graceful degradation. No contradictions.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first front-loads the tool's outputs, second explains backend architecture. No wasted words.

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?

Complex tool with many outputs and backends; description lists outputs but doesn't specify return format. Output schema absent, but list suffices for most agents. Minor gap.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions; description adds backend context but no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what schema provides. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states 'Full decklist health check' and lists specific analysis types (mana curve, colors, combos, etc.), making the tool's purpose highly specific and actionable.

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?

Description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings like 'deck_validate' or 'budget_upgrade'. It implies comprehensive analysis but doesn't state exclusions or alternatives.

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