get_card_printings

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotation: results are sorted 'most valuable first' and the addressed printing is included in the output. It does not mention pagination behavior, but that is covered by the schema parameters. Overall, it adds meaningful behavioral details.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, then usage guidance, then an alternative comparison. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition. The structure is clear and efficient.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description is complete for the tool's complexity: it covers what the tool does, when to use it, how it differs from an alternative, sorting order, and inclusion of the addressed printing. The readOnlyHint annotation and schema provide additional context. No critical information appears missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 already provides 100% coverage, with descriptions for setCode, setNumber, page, and limit. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates the concepts of 'set code' and 'collector number' without new details. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List every printing of the card at this set code and collector number.' It clearly defines the tool's scope (printings for a given set code and collector number) and differentiates it from search_cards by explaining how search_cards works differently. This is a precise, non-tautological statement.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to compare what the same card costs across sets, or to find a cheaper printing.' It also explicitly prefers it over a specific alternative, search_cards, and explains why: search_cards does substring matching on names and returns unrelated cards. This meets the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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