tcg_collection_set_completion

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral details: matching logic (by pricing_listing_id or subject+card_number) and watchlist cross-reference. No contradictions.

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 concise with a clear structure: purpose sentence, then bullet points for each card logic, then return values. Every sentence adds information without repetition or fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema shown, the description lists all key return values (owned/missing counts, completion percentage, gap cost, per-card breakdown). The tool has few parameters and the logic is fully explained. It is complete for a read-only computation tool.

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 partial (rarity has description, set_id has none). The description mentions optional rarity filter but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. The matching logic description does not directly enhance parameter semantics. Score is baseline 3 because schema coverage is moderate but description doesn't fully compensate.

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 'Compute set-completion progress for a Pokemon TCG set' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling collection tools like tcg_collection_get or tcg_collection_list by focusing on set completion and gap pricing.

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 explains the matching logic (ownership, watchlist, missing) and optional rarity filter, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, which is minor given the clear purpose.

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