search_card_by_name

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It usefully warns that the first result may not be an exact match, which is meaningful behavioral disclosure for a search tool — suggesting approximate/fuzzy matching. It's a read operation presumably, and while no explicit safety claim is made, the warning about result accuracy is the most valuable behavioral signal and it's present.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste, entirely front-loaded with the purpose first. The behavioral caveat is efficiently packed into the same short description. Efficient and scannable.

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 is a search tool with a simple purpose and an output schema provided, so the return format doesn't need describing. The description covers the core purpose plus the key pitfall (imprecise first result). It could add a bit more nuance on pagination/fuzzy-matching behavior, but for a basic search tool with output schema, it's largely sufficient.

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 explains that 'name' refers to card title (though 'name' parameter is arguably self-explanatory). It does not explain 'page' or 'limit' semantics, but those are standard pagination params with defaults (1 and 20), making them self-evident. The description adds modest value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Search card printings by title') and clearly identifies the search target. It distinguishes reasonably from siblings like search_cards (plural) and find_card_by_number, though it doesn't explicitly name which sibling it differs from.

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 warns 'do not assume the first result is exact,' which implies the results may be fuzzy or partial matches — useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over search_cards, find_card_by_number, or resolve_card, leaving the agent to infer based on parameter shape.

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