find_card_by_number

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only mentions set ID preference but doesn't reveal pagination behavior, what happens when multiple cards match, ordering, or whether limit=20 caps results. The word 'preferring' hints at fallback logic but doesn't explain it.

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?

A tight single sentence with no filler. Efficient but arguably under-specified given the tool's complexity — concise yes, but at the cost of missing critical guidance.

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 having an output schema, the description is too thin for a tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations among 40+ siblings. It doesn't explain search semantics, ambiguity handling, or relationship to get_card/resolve_card. The set ID preference hint is under-developed.

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%, with 5 parameters including optional set_id, set_code, card_name, and limit. The description only explains collector_number's role (implicitly) and vaguely references set ID preference. It doesn't clarify how set_id vs set_code interact, what card_name adds, or default behavior of limit=20.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Find cards by collector number') which is clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like search_cards, search_card_by_name, or get_card which may overlap in function. The mention of 'preferring numeric set ID' hints at behavior but doesn't clarify the distinction from other card-lookup tools.

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 explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. The description says 'preferring numeric set ID when supplied' but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus search_cards, resolve_card, or get_card. Given 40+ sibling tools including multiple card-search variants, this is a significant gap.

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