search_tcg_products

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does solid work: 'FREE — no payment required', the fact that adding a set splits printing into separate entries, and the critical quirk that rarity/condition words are not indexed and can 'sink' a query, with a concrete fallback. It does not address pagination or limit semantics, but the behaviors most likely to be misconceived are explicitly disclosed.

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: one-line summary, why-use, then actionable search tactics as bullets. Every bullet carries working examples and earns its place. It is somewhat longer than strictly necessary and mixes alert-style emphasis with guidance, so a 5 is not quite earned, but nothing is filler.

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 tool with 3 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers most of what an agent needs: query construction, result shape ('set' field, product_id), pricing, and downstream tool handoff. The most meaningful gap is the undisclosed 'game' parameter—the agent could call the tool correctly with just query, but would not know how to leverage or validate the optional game filter.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters itself. It does an exceptional job on 'query'—with do/don't examples and a fallback strategy—but 'game' gets zero explanation and 'limit' is never mentioned. For a 3-parameter tool, coverage is uneven: query is over-specified while the other two parameters remain undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Search 449K+ TCG products') and a concrete output (card names, IDs, market prices). It clearly differentiates from siblings like card_forecast, grade_or_not, and simulate_price by positioning itself as the discovery/primer search step, not an analysis step.

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?

An explicit 'Use this when' block names the common triggers (finding a specific card or pricing). It also gives routing guidance—pass the result's product_id to card_forecast, grade_or_not, or simulate_price—which clarifies how it relates to siblings. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use it' or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that the agent is unlikely to reach for it for the analytical sibling tools.

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