mtg_search_cards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it adds almost nothing beyond the verb. It does not state that the operation is read-only, how results are ordered, whether matching is exact or substring, or how the limit interacts with total results.

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 sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. Every word maps to a capability, and nothing is buried or repeated.

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 six-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but leaves real questions open: result ordering, pagination beyond the limit default of 10, and whether omitted filters match everything. It is enough to invoke the tool, not enough to predict its behavior.

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% with all six parameters documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description's facet list (name, color, type, set, rarity) loosely mirrors the schema but adds no syntax, combination logic, or expected case/format details beyond it.

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 (Search) and resource (Magic: The Gathering cards) plus the filterable facets, so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. Sibling tools mtg_get_card and mtg_sets imply search-vs-retrieve and search-vs-list distinctions, but the description never names them, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative mtg_get_card for single-card lookup or mtg_sets for set enumeration. The agent must infer routing purely from the tool name, which is a clear gap given several MTG siblings.

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