get_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It says 'Get detail' but does not disclose what details are returned (e.g., name, release date), nor does it mention error conditions or response structure. This is insufficient for a tool with no output schema.

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 of 11 words that efficiently communicates the core functionality without redundancy. Every word serves a purpose.

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 simple single-parameter tool, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain what 'detail' includes, which is especially important given no output schema. Some users might need to look elsewhere to understand the response format.

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 0% description coverage, but the description adds the example 'lea' and 'mh3', clarifying the format (three-letter set code). This compensates significantly, though it does not specify case sensitivity or allowed values.

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 explicitly states the action ('Get detail') and the resource ('single set'), and provides concrete examples ('lea', 'mh3'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_sets (which searches) and list_set_cards (which lists cards).

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 implies the tool is used when you know the set code, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like search_sets for finding set codes. No prerequisites or context are given.

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