Get card image URIs

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 mentions handling double-faced cards but lacks details on behavior (e.g., return format for multi-faced cards) and does not disclose any safety or rate-limiting aspects.

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 are concise and front-loaded, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and key features with no superfluous words.

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?

Without an output schema, the description lists returned image URIs but does not specify the response structure (e.g., object keys). The handling of double-faced cards is mentioned but not detailed. The multiple identification methods are adequately covered by 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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds context about returned image sizes and double-faced cards but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema's definitions.

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 it returns image URIs for a card, listing multiple sizes and handling double-faced cards. It specifies identification methods (id, name, set+collector number), distinguishing it from siblings that return card data or do other operations.

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 implies usage for fetching card images but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_card_by_id or get_card_named. No explicit when-not-to or comparison to siblings.

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