get_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'normalized' output and marketplace details, which is useful, but does not disclose rate limits, required API keys, data freshness, which marketplace sources are used, or the nature of the two ID formats. Given a get/read operation with an output schema, some transparency burden is relieved, but the description remains thin on behavior.

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 compact—a single sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. No wasted words. It doesn't earn higher because it omits useful detail it could have included given its brevity.

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?

The tool has 2 params, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but does have an output schema and no nested objects. Describing 'marketplace details' and normalized data helps set expectations for return content. However, the 'two supported ID formats' remain unspecified, which is a meaningful completeness gap for such a retrieval-heavy tool with many overlapping siblings.

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 schema provides no semantic help for card_id or set_code. The description mentions 'either supported ID format' hinting that card_id can hold different formats, but doesn't explain what those formats are or the role of set_code (e.g., whether it disambiguates between printings sharing a number). The description adds minimal value beyond raw field names.

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 clear purpose: 'Get complete normalized card and marketplace details.' It identifies the verb (get), the resource (card), and introduces the concept of 'normalized' details and two supported ID formats. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like search_cards, resolve_card, or search_card_by_name, which is a notable gap given the large sibling set.

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 mentions 'either supported ID format' but never says what those formats are or when to use this tool over search_cards, resolve_card, search_card_by_name, or find_card_by_number. No when-to-use or exclusion guidance is provided. For a tool that overlaps heavily with several siblings, 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.