keyword_explain

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

Annotations confirm read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying the return content: 'rules definition, reminder text, and up to 5 example cards'.

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 concise sentences with essential information; no redundant words. Purpose and output are 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 the tool's straightforward purpose and the richness of annotations/schema, the description covers the basics well. Minor gap: does not specify behavior for invalid keywords, but overall sufficient.

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?

Input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what schema provides.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Explain an MTG keyword with rules text, examples, and interactions.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'rules_lookup' by focusing specifically on keywords and including example cards.

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 (to explain MTG keywords) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'rules_lookup' or 'rules_interaction'.

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