search_sets

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies the operation is read-only ('List') and describes the output fields, but does not mention any potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or defaults for pagination.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second lists the return fields. It is front-loaded 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. It explains what the tool returns, but it lacks details on pagination defaults (e.g., page size if not specified) and whether any sorting or filtering is applied. The absence of an output schema means the agent must infer the response structure from the listed fields.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'optionally paginated' without describing what 'page' and 'limit' do or their valid ranges, which are already in the schema. Thus it adds minimal meaning beyond the raw schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists Magic: The Gathering sets, optionally paginated, and specifies the returned fields (set code, name, release date, type, aggregate prices). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_set' (single set) and 'list_set_cards' (cards within a set).

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_set' or 'list_set_cards'. It only mentions optional pagination, but no context about when to choose this over other set-related tools.

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