get_set_stats

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's mention of return categories (cards, rarity, prices) adds some context but no additional behavioral constraints like rate limits or pagination. It does not contradict 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences total. The first sentence lists output categories, the second gives parameter guidance. No filler or redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description need not detail return types. It adequately lists the main output categories (cards, rarity, prices, top cards). However, it could briefly mention any sorting or filtering constraints, but overall it is complete enough for a simple 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description bears full burden. It adds meaning by providing an example ('e.g. 'mh3'') for the set_code parameter, which the schema only labels as 'Set Code'. This helps the agent understand the format, though it does not enumerate all valid values.

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 clearly states the tool provides set statistics including cards, rarity, prices, and top cards. The verb 'get' is implied by the name, and the resource 'set' is specified, but the exact scope (e.g., what 'top cards' means) is not fully elaborated. It distinguishes itself from siblings like browse_cards and get_card_price.

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 provides parameter guidance (example for set_code) but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information. It does not mention alternatives or context for selection among siblings.

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