search_cards

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds specific behavioral traits: fuzzy matching, typo handling, and minimum 2 chars for query. No contradictions; adds value beyond 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?

Two sentences covering purpose and parameter constraints. No wasted words, front-loaded with key action. Every sentence contributes.

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?

For a search tool with output schema, description covers input constraints and behavior fully. Context signals show no nested objects or enums, so no hidden complexity. Complete enough for correct tool invocation.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explicitly adds constraints: query minimum 2 characters, limit range 1-50 (schema shows default 10). This adds meaningful validation context beyond 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 searches MTG cards by name with fuzzy matching, handling typos and partial names. It distinguishes from sibling tools like browse_cards or find_cards by specifying name-based fuzzy search.

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 implies usage for name-based fuzzy searches but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. Context from sibling tools suggests it is distinct, but no direct exclusions are given.

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