sbwsz

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination and sorting capabilities, but doesn't address important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. The description is insufficient for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.

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 appropriately concise with just one sentence that states the core purpose and mentions key features (pagination and sorting). It's front-loaded with the main functionality, though it could be more structured by separating purpose from features.

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 tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, expected behaviors, response format, or error handling. The mention of pagination and sorting is insufficient given the complexity of the 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters, the description fails to compensate. It mentions pagination and sorting generally but doesn't explain what 'set_code', 'page', 'page_size', 'order', or 'priority_chinese' mean or how they should be used. The schema provides only basic type information without semantic context.

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: '获取特定系列的所有卡牌' (get all cards from a specific set). It specifies the resource (cards) and scope (specific set), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_card_by_set_and_number' or 'search_cards'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions pagination and sorting support, but doesn't explain when to choose this over 'search_cards' or 'get_card_by_set_and_number', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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