List all printings of a card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output fields but does not disclose behavior such as pagination, error handling (e.g., unknown card name), rate limits, or whether the list is comprehensive. It is adequate for a simple read operation but lacks deeper transparency.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and output, the second provides a use case. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by listing key fields (set, collector number, rarity, prices, image URIs). However, it does not mention default ordering or whether the list has limits. For a simple two-parameter tool, it is mostly complete but could be slightly richer.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description mentions the 'name' parameter ('by name') but adds no significant meaning beyond the schema for the 'order' parameter. The baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed it.

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 lists every printing of a card by name, specifying the included fields (set, collector number, rarity, prices, image URIs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_card_by_id or get_card_prices by focusing on all printings, and the usage hint for comparing across sets adds clarity.

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 indicates when to use the tool (for comparing prices/art across sets) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. With siblings like get_card_prices and get_card_images, more explicit differentiation would be beneficial, but the context is clear enough.

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