tcg_cgc_get_cert

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds critical context that the tool is stubbed and returns an error, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 with no fluff: first states purpose and stub status, second explains why. Front-loaded and concise, though could be restructured to emphasize the non-functionality first.

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 stub tool, the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks details about the exact error format or how the agent should handle it. With an output schema likely describing the error, completeness is decent but not thorough.

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 0% (no descriptions in schema), yet the tool description provides no additional meaning for the 'cert_number' parameter. The agent only has the parameter name and constraints from the schema; description should clarify format or purpose.

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?

Description clearly states it is a 'stubbed' implementation for CGC cert lookup, which returns a 'not supported' error. The verb 'lookup' and resource 'graded card' are implied, but no explicit differentiation from sibling tools like tcg_psa_get_cert or tcg_bgs_get_cert.

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?

Implies the tool is non-functional due to 'No official public API' and 'stubbed', but does not explicitly tell the agent when to avoid it or suggest alternatives. More direct guidance such as 'Do not use; use PSA/BGS tools instead' would be better.

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