find_cards

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description lists parameters but does not add behavioral details like response format, pagination, or search behavior (e.g., AND/OR logic). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and usage example, then parameter list. Efficient use of space with no fluff. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., grouping), but functional.

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?

Given tool complexity (14 parameters, output schema exists), description covers core filtering capabilities. Missing detail on query conjunction (AND vs OR) and pagination beyond limit, but adequate for a search tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides brief but meaningful explanations for all 14 parameters (e.g., 'oracle_text: Rules text search.'). Adds value beyond schema titles and defaults (e.g., 'limit: 1-50').

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Find MTG cards') and enumerates key filtering dimensions. Usage example reinforces purpose. However, does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'search_cards' or 'browse_cards'.

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?

Implied usage via example ('For deck building queries'), but no guidance on when not to use or comparison to alternatives. Given many sibling tools, explicit when-to-use would help.

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