browse_cards

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., pagination, rate limits). It aligns with annotations but does not enhance beyond them.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second lists arguments in a compact format. No wasted words, but the arg list could be better formatted for readability.

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?

Covers main functionality and key parameters, but missing details about filter values (e.g., rarity options) and pagination (beyond limit). Output schema exists, so return values are not required. Adequate for a simple browse tool but has gaps.

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 provides some parameter details: sort values (price/name/recent), order values (desc/asc), limit range (1-50). However, it omits semantics for rarity and set_code filters, and default values are not mentioned.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Browse' and resource 'MTG cards', with specific capabilities (by price, name, newest). It differentiates from sibling tools like search_cards and find_cards which likely have more advanced filtering.

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?

Description lists sorting and filtering options but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_cards or find_cards. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparative guidance.

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