search_cards

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses catalog size, active vs. catalog-only entries, and the return of product IDs. It implies a safe read operation but does not explicitly state nondestructive nature.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. It contains useful details but could be slightly more concise without losing information.

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 tool's complexity (search over 433K items), the description provides good context: catalog size, games, and return value usage. Output schema exists, so return values are handled. Minor gap: missing detail on search behavior (e.g., fuzzy matching).

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% and schema descriptions are present. The description adds example search terms and mentions game filter but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Search 433K+ trading card products by name using full-text search' and lists specific games and what is returned. It distinguishes from siblings by noting that product IDs are needed for get_price and get_merkle_proof.

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 implicitly guides usage by stating it returns product IDs for other tools and mentions catalog details. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance beyond the sibling list.

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