Search Pokémon TCG cards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses non-obvious behavior: raw Lucene passthrough, ANDed filters, and compact summaries. It stops short of describing pagination, rate limits, or sorting, but the core semantic behavior is well covered.

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 front-loaded purpose, a concrete example, and no wasted words. The structure clearly communicates the essential behavior in minimal space.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's mention of 'compact card summaries' gives some idea of the return shape but lacks field details. It covers the main query mechanics well, and for a search tool with no required parameters, this is largely complete, though pagination/error behavior is omitted.

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 57% (4/7). The description adds meaningful semantics for 'query' (name or Lucene) and filter behavior (ANDed), but does not elaborate on max_results, standard_legal_only, or supertype beyond their schema names/enum. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 states the tool searches the pokemontcg.io card database, with a specific verb ('Search') and resource, and provides query syntax details and return type. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_card (specific card retrieval) and find_similar_effects.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use this tool: to search cards flexibly via name or Lucene query, with filters ANDed. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to prefer other tools, but the usage context is well stated.

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