suggest_budget_alternatives

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint (true) and openWorldHint (true), indicating safe read operation and non-exhaustive results. The description adds that alternatives share type/CMC and are cheaper, but does not mention ordering, completeness guarantees, or edge cases. With annotations covering safety, the description adds moderate behavioral context.

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: one sentence plus a brief arg list. No extraneous words, all information is relevant and front-loaded.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, parameters, and constraints. However, it could briefly hint at the output structure (e.g., a list of cards with prices) to improve completeness, but not required.

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 carries full burden. It explains each parameter: card_name as 'Card to replace', max_price as 'Cap', format as 'Legality filter'. This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's type/title, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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's purpose: finding cheaper alternatives with similar type/CMC (converted mana cost). It provides a specific verb ('suggest') and resource ('budget alternatives'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'find_cards' or 'evaluate_card' by focusing on budget substitutions.

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 when to use (when a cheaper version of a card is needed) and lists parameters (card_name, max_price, format) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. The context of sibling tools makes the usage clear enough.

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