mtg_get_card

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, and the description adds nothing behavioral beyond that—no note on what happens with an invalid/unknown ID, whether card data is cached or live, or what the response looks like. With the safety profile fully covered by annotations, the description contributes no supplementary context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste—verb and key come first. It is efficient, though so terse that structure is barely a factor.

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?

For a one-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description covers the essentials. Since there is no output schema, it arguably should say what a returned card record contains, and it is silent on error behavior for unknown IDs.

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% and the single parameter's schema entry ("Multiverse ID of the card.") fully defines it. The description merely repeats "multiverse ID" without adding format, validity, or sourcing guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get a specific MTG card") plus the lookup key (multiverse ID), which cleanly separates it from the broader mtg_search_cards. It never names the sibling, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

"by its multiverse ID" implies the caller must already have an ID (likely from mtg_search_cards), which hints at the right call order. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative is stated.

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