search_sealed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's statement 'Find sealed products' is consistent. The description does not add behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, but also does not contradict them. It lacks disclosure of pagination, result structure, or dynamic behavior, but annotations cover the safety profile.

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 very concise: two sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. It lists arguments in a compact format. Every sentence is functional and earns its place. Minor room for improvement in structuring the argument list.

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 only 2 optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain the return format or ordering, but the output schema likely covers that. The openWorldHint annotation suggests dynamic results, but the description doesn't elaborate. Overall, it covers essential context but leaves some unanswered questions.

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 meaning to both parameters: 'set_code: Filter by set' and 'category: booster_box/booster_pack/bundle'. This provides useful context beyond the schema's names and defaults. However, the description does not specify allowed values for set_code or clarify that category values are examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 'Find sealed products' with a specific verb and resource. It provides example categories (booster_box/booster_pack/bundle) that help distinguish it from sibling tools like search_cards or browse_cards. However, it could be more explicit about the exact scope of 'sealed products'.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the 20 siblings. It only implies usage by the tool name and description, but no explicit when-not or alternative recommendations are given, leaving the agent without clear contextual cues.

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