compare_printings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one useful behavioral nuance ('without implying they are the same card'), but doesn't disclose what the comparison returns, whether it's read-only, or any filtering behavior for the limit/source/variant parameters. This is lean for a tool with four parameters.

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?

Single sentence, zero wasted words, front-loaded with the action verb. Appropriate length for the limited content it conveys, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient density.

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?

This is a comparison tool with four parameters, an output schema, and zero annotation coverage. The description doesn't explain what the output contains, what the source/variant filters do, what the difference from compare_cards is beyond the phrasing nuance, or any default behavior. For a tool with this much complexity, the description is insufficiently complete.

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 compensate, but it mentions no parameters at all. The description doesn't explain what 'source' or 'variant' filter to, or how 'limit' applies to a comparison. With four parameters, including two string filters with empty defaults, this is a significant gap.

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 says 'Compare separate printings of a title' which uses a clear verb (Compare) and resource (printings of a title), and distinguishes from siblings like compare_cards by emphasizing 'separate printings' vs 'same card'. However, it doesn't specify what aspect is compared (prices? stats? artwork?) or what output is produced.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't explain when compare_cards vs compare_printings vs compare_card_prices should be chosen, which is important given the sibling tools present. The negative constraint ('without implying same card') hints at context but offers no positive guidance or exclusions.

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