get_set

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 mentions pagination and 'shared-code ambiguity' resolution but doesn't explain what 'shared-code ambiguity' means, whether this is a read-only operation, what happens with unknown codes, or how the ambiguity is surfaced in the output. The term is asserted but never defined.

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 a single concise sentence, which is structurally clean. However, the 'shared-code ambiguity' phrase consumes a third of the sentence without being explained, so the efficiency is undermined. There is no wasted filler, but the content isn't maximally informative.

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 tool has 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and sits among ~40 sibling tools including several closely related set tools. It has an output schema but the description still fails to explain the 'shared-code ambiguity' concept, the meaning of set_code_or_id, or the pagination behavior in enough detail. For a tool with this complexity and sibling competition, the description is significantly under-specified.

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. It adds no explanation for set_code_or_id (whether an ID or code string is acceptable format), page, limit, or language parameters. None of the four parameters are explained. The description mentions 'set details and paginated card page' which loosely maps to the output, but no parameter gets meaningful added semantics.

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 it gets set details and a paginated card page, which is a reasonable verb+resource. However, the phrase 'returning shared-code ambiguity explicitly' is unclear jargon that doesn't explain what this ambiguity is or why it matters. There are many sibling tools (get_set_cards, get_complete_set_cards, list_sets, search_sets) and this description does little to distinguish get_set from them beyond the pagination and ambiguity mention.

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 guidance is given. The description doesn't state when to prefer this over get_set_cards, get_complete_set_cards, or list_sets. The phrase about 'shared-code ambiguity' hints at a differentiating use case but never explains it concretely, leaving the agent unable to determine when this specific tool is appropriate.

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