scryfall_whats_new

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the primary behavioral traits are covered. The description adds context about the day range and filter options but does not disclose further behavioral details (e.g., result format, pagination, or any side effects). With annotations present, the description's additional value is moderate.

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 concise with three sentences: first for purpose, second for mechanism, third for optional filters. It is front-loaded with the key action and efficient, with no unnecessary words or 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 absence of an output schema, the description covers the input behavior well (day range, filters, limit). It does not explicitly describe the output structure, but the limit parameter implies a list, and the name suggests card data. For a search tool with annotations indicating safe, idempotent, open-world behavior, this is adequately complete.

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 mentions the core parameters (days, set, format) but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Parameters like limit and response_format are not mentioned, but since the schema covers them well, the description does not need to compensate.

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 it finds recently printed/released Magic cards, specifying the search mechanism (by days) and optional filters (set, format). The name reinforces the purpose, and it effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like scryfall_search_cards (general search) and scryfall_card_details (specific card lookup).

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 indicates when to use this tool (for recent cards within a timeframe, with optional filters). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or cross-references to sibling tools.

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