resolve_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool deduplicates and deterministically ranks, and that it is 'progressive.' However, it does not explain what 'progressively' means in practice (e.g., returns partial results, has fallback matching), what the output structure looks like despite an output schema existing, or any auth/rate-limit considerations for such a search operation.

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?

One sentence, no filler, front-loads the key concept. The sentence is compact and contains meaningful verbs. However, it is slightly dense and jargon-heavy ('exact-printing candidates') without clarification, yet for a single-sentence description it is appropriately concise.

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?

With 5 parameters at 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the description should compensate significantly, but it only introduces the search/rank concept without explaining the parameters, the progressive behavior, or when to use this over the many sibling search tools. An output schema exists, which helps return-value understanding, but the operational context is thin for a tool with this many 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 parameters are entirely undocumented in prose. The description doesn't explain how top_k, set_id, set_code, or collector_number relate to 'progressive search' or the ranking. An agent has to infer the meaning of required 'name' and the optional narrowing fields from the schema titles alone. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the JSON schema already exposes.

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 'Progressively search, deduplicate, and deterministically rank exact-printing candidates.' It names a specific process (search/rank) and the target (exact-printing card candidates), but 'card' is implied rather than stated, and it doesn't use a clear verb+object structure. With many sibling name-search tools like search_cards, search_card_by_name, and find_card_by_number, the description doesn't explicitly clarify what distinguishes this tool from them beyond the ranking/dedup aspect.

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 a progressively-refining search with deduplication and deterministic ranking, suggesting when one might prefer it (when ranking exact-printing matches). However, it never explicitly says when to use this vs the many sibling tools (search_cards, find_card_by_number, get_card, compare_printings). The exclusions or alternatives are not named.

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