price_deck

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, indicating a read operation. However, it does not add behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as data sources, permission requirements, or caveats about pricing accuracy.

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 with two sentences and no redundant content. The key action and arguments are front-loaded, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers the tool's core functionality and argument semantics adequately. Minor omission: no mention of optional format behavior when empty.

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 adds crucial meaning: it specifies the decklist format ('4 Lightning Bolt' per line) and lists valid format values (standard/modern/commander). This compensates for the bare 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 clearly states the tool prices a decklist and enumerates specific features (curve, colors, legality, budget swaps). It uses the specific verb 'Price' and resource 'decklist', distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_mana_curve, check_legality, and suggest_budget_alternatives.

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 lists arguments but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage through the argument descriptions but lacks when-not or direct comparisons to siblings.

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