Find cards by effect

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

The description discloses useful behavioral traits: keywords are ORed and results are ranked by match count. It does not describe return format, limits, or authentication requirements, but as a read-only discovery tool the safety profile is reasonable to infer.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately providing a usage example. Every word adds value and there is no redundancy.

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?

With four parameters, no output schema, and only one parameter meaningfully described, the description leaves return values and important filtering behavior unexplained. It captures the core use case but is incomplete for confident invocation.

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 only 25%, and the description only adds insight for effect_text with an example. The other parameters (supertype, max_results, standard_legal_only) are left undocumented, so the agent receives little guidance beyond raw defaults and enums.

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 clearly identifies this as a discovery tool for finding cards by plain-language effect descriptions, complete with a concrete example. It distinguishes itself from generic card search by emphasizing 'effect in plain words' and matching attack/ability/rules text.

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 'Discovery tool' framing and plain-words example establish when this tool should be used, and the ORed/ranking detail provides helpful context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like search_cards or state when not to use it, but the intended usage is clear.

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