evaluate_upgrade

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by noting graceful degradation when external sources are unavailable. This warns the user about potential incomplete results. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the description complements them well. 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?

The description is extremely concise with two clear sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second covers outputs and edge-case behavior. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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 lack of output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of return fields (card details, price, synergy, combos) and graceful degradation. It could be more specific about output structure but is sufficient for most use cases.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema provides, but it does add context by naming example values ('Spore Frog'). It does not describe the response_format enum in detail, but the schema itself handles that.

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: assessing a card for a specific commander deck. It lists the outputs (card details, price, synergy score, combos) which distinguishes it from generic card lookup tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar deck-building tools like budget_upgrade or build_around.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or suggest other tools for different needs (e.g., simple card info or deck building).

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