get_set_cards

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does disclose the important page-level sorting limitation ('sorting is page-level only') which is genuinely useful context. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior details, response format, or whether prices are included (include_prices defaults true). The one behavioral trait disclosed is valuable but coverage is partial.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, at 8 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the brevity sacrifices needed parameter documentation—still, as a standalone sentence it is efficient.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is notably incomplete. It doesn't explain the paging mechanics, sort options, language filtering, or price-related parameters. An output schema exists but the input parameter semantics are largely undocumented. The description adequately handles the set-scoped fetch concept but leaves most of the input surface unexplained.

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 gets no baseline credit and must compensate. With 8 parameters and only 1 required (set_code_or_id), the description adds no parameter meaning—it doesn't explain page/limit semantics, sort_by values, language codes, or price_source/variant options. The description names zero parameters despite having a complex 8-parameter surface.

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 'Get and locally sort one set page' which specifies the verb (get), resource (set page). It distinguishes from 'get_complete_set_cards' by noting 'one set page' and 'sorting is page-level only', though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative sibling tool. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is implicit.

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 implies this fetches a single page of set cards and that sorting is local/page-level, which suggests use for bounded queries. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs get_complete_set_cards vs get_set_prices or any alternatives. Context is clear but no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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