List Pokémon TCG sets

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds valuable context: row fields, region counts, and especially the non-obvious fact that Japanese sets are separate rows from their international counterparts. This prevents a realistic misinterpretation.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The output fields are front-loaded, followed by useful counts and the crucial Japanese-set caveat. 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 eight filter parameters and no output schema, the description explains the returned row contents, region distinctions, and a subtle data-model behavior. It does not explicitly discuss pagination or default ordering, but cursor/limit and order_by are present in the schema.

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 schema already covers most parameters with descriptions, and the description adds useful domain context around regions and date-based queries. However, it does not add parameter-level meaning for limit, cursor, or filtering behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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 names the resource (Pokémon TCG sets) and the exact fields returned: code, series, print region, release date, and printed total. This is distinct from sibling tools that focus on cards, prices, artists, or catalogue status.

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 example 'every Japanese set released in 2024' tells an agent when to call this tool and implies which filters apply (region and release dates). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude them, but the intended use case is clear.

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