sbwsz

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: pagination support (page/page_size with defaults and limits), sorting capabilities (order parameter with syntax), and special features like unique deduplication and Chinese card priority. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but covers substantial operational details.

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 well-structured with clear sections (query syntax, pagination, sorting, other parameters) and uses bullet points effectively. Every sentence provides essential information, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with a summary before diving into details.

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 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive parameter documentation and behavioral context. It lacks details on return format (what fields are included in results) and error cases, but covers most essential usage aspects adequately.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides detailed semantics for all 6 parameters: query syntax examples for 'q', pagination details for 'page' and 'page_size', sorting syntax for 'order', deduplication options for 'unique', and language preference for 'priority_chinese'. This adds significant value 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's purpose: '通过查询字符串搜索卡牌' (search cards via query string). It specifies the exact action (search) and resource (cards), distinguishing it from siblings like get_card_by_set_and_number (specific card retrieval) or get_set_cards (cards within a set).

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 through query syntax examples but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_set_cards or get_card_by_set_and_number. It provides context for search functionality but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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