List card illustrators

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: deduplication across 30 years of printings, and the fact that the returned name is meant to be reused as an argument. It does not disclose pagination behavior, but the cursor parameter is visible in the 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?

Two sentences, no filler. The core purpose and deduplication behavior are front-loaded, and the cross-tool usage hint is placed second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns (illustrators with card counts), the deduplication behavior, and how to use the result. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the exact output shape (e.g., whether counts are numbers or strings), but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical for a simple list tool.

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 33% (only 'name' has a description). The description adds meaning by explaining that the returned name is used with the artist argument of ptcg_search_cards, which clarifies the purpose of the name parameter. However, it does not explain the limit or cursor parameters beyond what the schema shows (max/min for limit, type for cursor). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('illustrators'), and the key behavior ('deduplicated across 30 years of printings'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly connecting to ptcg_search_cards via the artist argument, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need an illustrator name to pass to ptcg_search_cards. It names the sibling tool and the argument, providing a concrete usage path. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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