pokemon_tcg_search_cards

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses nothing beyond the existence of the tool. It doesn't say whether multiple filters are ANDed, what happens when no filter is supplied (all params are optional), how results are ordered, or whether pagination applies.

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 no filler; it is appropriately sized for a simple search tool. It is arguably a touch sparse, but nothing is wasted.

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 five-parameter, all-optional search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits important context such as default behavior with no filters, result shape, and result limits beyond the schema's 'limit' hint. The gaps an agent would need to call it well are not covered.

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 each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description merely restates the same filter fields without adding format, matching semantics (exact vs partial name), or interaction rules, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb (Search) and resource (Pokemon TCG cards) and enumerates the filterable dimensions (name, type, set, rarity). It implicitly distinguishes itself from pokemon_tcg_sets, which returns set data rather than cards, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement about combining filters, and no pointer to alternatives like pokemon_tcg_sets or poke_get_pokemon. The listing of filter dimensions hints at usage but never states context or exclusions.

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