set_overview

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying the data source (17Lands card ratings) and a prerequisite (17Lands enabled), providing context beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 very concise with three short sentences, each providing essential information (purpose, data source, prerequisite). 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?

The description explains the tool's purpose and data source but omits details about the output format or structure. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the agent can expect in the response (e.g., list of cards, ratings). This gap reduces completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter (set_code, event_type, response_format). The description adds no additional meaning to these parameters, so baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states it provides a 'Draft format overview' with specific focus on 'top commons/uncommons and trap rares', using 17Lands data. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'archetype_comparison' or 'draft_log_review' which have different purposes.

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 mentions 'Requires 17Lands to be enabled', which is a prerequisite, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'archetype_comparison' or 'format_entry_guide'. Usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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