Get card rulings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states the function and identification methods, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as response format, rate limits, or auth requirements. It is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and identification methods. Every word is essential; no wasted text.

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 the simplicity of the tool (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks information about return values or pagination. It does not explain what the 'rulings' output contains, forcing the agent to rely on prior knowledge.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the usage pattern (use id OR set+collector_number), which is not explicit in the individual parameter descriptions. This clarification aids correct invocation.

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 action (fetch) and resource (official rulings for a card), and specifies the two identification methods (Scryfall ID or set+collector number). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_card_by_id or get_card_by_set_number which fetch card data, not rulings.

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 context (when you need rulings) and clearly states the two identification options. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool (e.g., for card data) or suggest alternatives.

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