search_cards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does add the term 'normalized' which hints at data quality/standardization, and lists accepted query formats. However, it doesn't clarify whether results are deduplicated, how results map to card identifiers, or any rate-limit/search-depth constraints. The 'normalized' hint is useful but thin for a search endpoint with an output schema.

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 tightly-worded sentence that conveys the searchable fields and accepted query formats. No filler, no repetition of schema defaults. Could arguably add sibling differentiation but the existing sentence is dense and 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?

Has an output schema which helps, but for a search tool with 5 parameters and 3+ overlapping siblings, the description could be more complete. The 'normalized' concept, pagination behavior, and how to craft a '<set_id> <number>' query are left underspecified. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool in a crowded sibling set.

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%, but the description mentions the query format options (name, set code, collector number, set_id+number), partially clarifying the 'query' parameter. The boolean flags (include_prices, include_image_links) and page/limit are self-explanatory defaults with no additional context needed. With 0% coverage, the description partially compensates for the query param but says nothing about the others.

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 specific verb+resource ('Search normalized cards') and lists the search dimensions (name, set code, collector number, set_id+number). However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings like search_card_by_name, find_card_by_number, and batch_search_cards, which likely overlap in search scope. The purpose is understandable but sibling differentiation is missing.

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 guidance on when to use this search tool vs the specialized siblings like search_card_by_name, find_card_by_number, resolve_card, or batch_search_cards. Given the large sibling set with overlapping search functionality, the lack of any when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is a genuine gap for agent selection.

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