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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral details about what the tool shows (price, colors, key cards, shared staples, differences) without contradicting 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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence provides value.

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?

The description covers the tool's output sufficiently (price, colors, etc.) despite no output schema. Combined with annotations, it provides a complete picture for a comparison 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters adequately described. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides.

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 compares 2-4 competitive archetypes side-by-side and lists the aspects shown (price, colors, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like goldfish_archetype_list or archetype_decklist.

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 use when comparing multiple archetypes but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context: it returns a full decklist with mainboard+sideboard, metadata, price when available, and archetype name is fuzzy-matched. No contradictions.

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 clear, front-loaded sentences with no unnecessary words. Every sentence provides value: first states the primary action, second details the return content. Excellent conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values: full decklist, metadata, price when available. It covers mainboard and sideboard. Minor gap: no mention of error cases or what happens if archetype not found, but sufficient for a read 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds only that archetype is fuzzy-matched, which is a minor enhancement. No additional semantics for format or response_format.

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 retrieves a stock decklist for a competitive archetype, with specific verb 'Get' and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like moxfield_decklist (user decks) and archetype_comparison (comparison), and details what is returned.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or contrast with similar tools, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description adds useful context about external dependencies (EDHREC, Scryfall) and the ranking method (synergy-per-dollar), which together provide good behavioral transparency.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain the return format. It fails to describe what the user will receive (e.g., a list of card names, prices, synergy scores). Given 4 parameters including format options, this is a notable gap.

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 100%, and parameters are described in the schema. The description reinforces the 'budget' parameter as a ceiling and mentions synergy-per-dollar but does not add meaningful detail beyond the 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 suggests budget-friendly upgrades for a commander deck, ranking by synergy-per-dollar within a budget ceiling. It distinguishes itself from siblings like evaluate_upgrade by focusing on budget and ranking.

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 budget-constrained upgrades but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like edhrec_commander_staples or evaluate_upgrade. No when-not guidance is provided.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-ended behavior. The description adds process details: analyzing oracle text, searching for synergies, checking combos, and grouping by role. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the 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 concise sentences plus a third line. First sentence captures core purpose. Second adds details on analysis and output grouping. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's main function and output grouping. However, it lacks explicit mention of return value format (e.g., 'returns a list of card names grouped by role'). Slightly incomplete but mostly adequate.

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 descriptions cover all parameters fully (100% coverage). The description mentions '1-5 card names' which aligns with the 'cards' parameter but adds no new semantics. Parameters like 'limit', 'budget', 'format', and 'response_format' are adequately described in schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 finds synergistic cards for 1-5 build-around cards, analyzes oracle text, searches for synergies, checks combo potential, and groups by role. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'spellbook_find_combos' and 'edhrec_card_synergy' by focusing on multi-card synergy grouping.

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 building around a core set of cards by stating '1-5 build-around cards' and 'any format', but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternative tools. No contrast with similar sibling tools like 'spellbook_find_combos' or 'theme_search'.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context: results are alphabetically sorted and include type lines, complementing the annotations without contradiction.

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 front-load the main purpose and output format, with no unnecessary words. Direct and efficient.

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 simple retrieval tool with one parameter and clear annotations, the description fully explains input (format) and output (sorted lists with type lines). No gaps remain.

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?

The only parameter 'format' has a description in the schema with examples, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics, so baseline score applies.

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 retrieves banned and restricted cards for a given format, specifying the output includes sorted lists with type lines. This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like bulk_format_legality.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied but not explicitly justified.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description adds value by describing the output as a table ordered by most common formats, which is 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, no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second adds output detail. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return format (table with legality status and ordering). It is mostly complete, though it could detail possible status values.

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 100% with a single parameter described as 'Card name to check format legality for'. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting baseline.

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 shows a card's legality across all Magic formats, with a specific verb 'Show' and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bulk_format_legality by covering all formats.

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 checking card legality in all formats but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. Guidance is limited to the stated scope.

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

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) already indicate safe, idempotent read behavior. The description adds value by detailing the specific output fields (mana cost, type, oracle text, etc.), which goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand what to expect from the response.

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 two sentences, each earning its place: first states the core purpose, second details return data. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no superfluous words, achieving high efficiency.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, 100% schema coverage, clear annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, input constraints, and output contents. Missing usage guidelines is a minor gap but does not severely impair completeness for this defined-exact-match 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., case-insensitive name, response_format enum). The tool description merely restates the case-insensitivity already in the schema, adding no new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 looks up a Magic card by exact name using Scryfall bulk data, and lists specific returned fields. It explicitly mentions 'exact name' and 'case-insensitive', distinguishing it from sibling tools like scryfall_search_cards or bulk_card_search which may offer fuzzy or broader 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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it. It implicitly indicates use for exact name lookups, but lacks direct comparisons or exclusion criteria, leaving a gap in usage decision support.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description adds minimal behavioral context. It does not mention that searches are substring-based or case-insensitive (though schema does), nor does it explain data freshness or result limits.

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 a single concise sentence, which is efficient but lacks structure. It could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose, earning an average score.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and multiple sibling card search tools, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention result format, pagination, or how bulk data differs from API search, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameter meanings. The description adds no extra semantic value, meeting the baseline expectation but not exceeding it.

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 for Magic cards, specifying 'Scryfall bulk data' as the source. This verb+resource pair is specific, though it could be strengthened by noting it's a local dataset to differentiate from the API-based 'scryfall_search_cards' sibling.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'scryfall_search_cards' or 'bulk_card_lookup'. It lacks context for optimal usage, such as recommending it for large-scale substring searches or offline capability.

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

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

Annotations already signal read-only, open-world, idempotent. Description adds that output is a markdown table and alias handling, providing useful behavioral details 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, description fully explains purpose, input, output format, and alias handling.

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 100%, and description adds no new information beyond what parameter descriptions provide.

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?

Clearly states verb 'batch legality check' for cards in a format, distinguishing from siblings like bulk_format_search or bulk_card_search which do other things.

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?

Provides context: returns markdown table and handles format aliases, but does not explicitly state when to use over alternatives or when not to use.

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

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that results are sorted by EDHREC rank (most popular first) and that it combines format legality filtering with various optional constraints. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which are consistent.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes essential details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's functionality (combining filters, sorting) and provides enough context for an agent to understand its use. It could mention that results include card details, but the response_format parameter addresses verbosity.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that the query is a natural language search for card name, type, or oracle text substring, and that optional filters include color identity, price, and rarity. This summarizes the parameter usage effectively.

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 that the tool searches for legal cards in a specific format using natural language, combining format legality filtering with name/type/text search and optional constraints. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bulk_card_search (which lacks format filtering) and bulk_format_legality (which likely only checks legality).

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 implicitly provides usage guidance by specifying that it searches for format-legal cards with search terms and filters. It contrasts with sibling tools like bulk_card_search (no format filter) and bulk_format_legality (just legality check), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context about how ranking adapts (EDHREC, MTGGoldfish, manaefficiency heuristic), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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: two sentences front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by necessary behavioral detail. No wasted words.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools that may return different formats, the description lacks an explanation of the return structure (e.g., fields, sorting). It adequately covers ranking logic but not what the output contains.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not provide additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already offers (e.g., ranking_mode behavior is explained in schema property description). No extra value.

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 finds 'most popular (staple) cards legal in a format', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself by explaining adaptive ranking logic based on format type, which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'edhrec_commander_staples' or 'goldfish_format_staples'.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool (finding staples for a format) and how ranking adapts (singleton vs competitive formats). It implies its niche among sibling staple tools but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true, but a random card tool is inherently non-idempotent—this is a contradiction. The description does not clarify that repeated calls yield different results or address any other behavioral traits (e.g., no mention of randomness seed or guarantees). The note about returning full card details in the same format as card_lookup adds context, but the contradiction undermines trust.

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 with no wasted words. The core action and optional filters are stated upfront. The return format reference is efficient. Perfectly concise and well-structured.

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 simple random card tool, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, optional filters, and return format reference. Without an output schema, the link to card_lookup provides some context, though it assumes familiarity with that tool. A slightly more complete description could explicitly state that the result is a single card object.

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 100%, and the description lists the four filter parameters (format, color, type, rarity) already defined in the schema. It adds no additional meaning or usage details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for a high-coverage 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?

States 'Get a random Magic card' which is a specific verb and resource. The optional filters (format, color, type, rarity) are clearly listed, and the return format reference to card_lookup distinguishes it from other lookup tools. It is precise and unambiguous.

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 use when a random card is needed, and notes that filters are optional. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., bulk_card_lookup for specific cards). No context for comparison with sibling tools is given.

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

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds behavioral context by detailing similarity factors (shared keywords, type words, CMC proximity, oracle text overlap), which goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 are concise and front-loaded with purpose. The second sentence lists similarity factors efficiently. No wasted words, though it could benefit from a more structured format (e.g., bullet points).

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description adequately covers the core functionality and filtering options. However, it lacks details on the output format (e.g., structure of results) and what 'limit' affects beyond schema description.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description mentions filtering by format and price, but does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Describes the tool as finding similar cards based on specific criteria (keywords, type words, CMC, oracle text). The purpose is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'card_comparison' or 'build_around' that also deal with similarity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions optional filters, it does not indicate when not to use it or suggest other tools for different use cases (e.g., comparing two specific cards).

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

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

Annotations declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world. Description adds context on data shown (mana cost, synergy, etc.) and required sources (Scryfall, Spellbook). No contradiction. Good behavioral transparency 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?

Description is concise with three short sentences. First sentence immediately states the core purpose. No unnecessary words. Efficient.

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?

The description covers purpose, output fields, and dependencies. For a tool without output schema, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what result to expect. However, it could mention formatting or error handling.

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 descriptions cover all 3 parameters completely. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the input schema. Therefore, parameter semantics is adequate but not enhanced.

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 compares 2-5 cards for a commander deck, listing the data points shown. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like commander_comparison and price_comparison.

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 specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like commander_comparison or price_comparison. It only states dependencies but no usage boundaries.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by revealing the data source (EDHREC aggregated data) and fallback behavior (EDHREC rank from bulk data), which informs the agent about data freshness and reliability.

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, no filler, front-loaded with purpose. Every word earns its place. Highly efficient.

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?

Description explains data source and fallback, but does not clarify the return structure (e.g., what fields are returned, whether cards are formatted as names with ranks). Since no output schema exists, some guidance on expected output format would improve completeness. Minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions 'color identity' (already in schema) and implies results are sorted by popularity. This is baseline value; no significant extra semantics provided.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns 'top cards across ALL commanders in a color identity', specifying verb (list top cards), resource (color identity), and scope (all commanders). This distinguishes it from per-commander staple tools like edhrec_commander_staples.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. The phrase 'across ALL commanders' hints at a broad use case, but does not state when one should choose this over sibling tools like edhrec_commander_staples or scryfall_search_cards. Usage is implied but not explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context by stating it looks up card keywords from bulk data if card names are provided, going beyond annotations to disclose external data dependency and behavior.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides key behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place.

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 absence of an output schema, the description explains the process steps but does not clarify the output format beyond the response_format parameter. It is mostly complete for a combat calculator, but could benefit from describing what detailed vs. concise output includes.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates that card names are used for keyword lookup, but the schema already describes the parameters adequately.

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 calculates combat step-by-step with keyword interactions. It uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('combat'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on combat resolution, unlike other rules or lookup tools.

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 outlines the combat steps (declare attackers → declare blockers → damage → state-based actions), providing clear context for when to use this tool. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, the step-by-step breakdown implies its intended use case.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the output format (side-by-side comparison table with specific columns). No contradictions.

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 two sentences with front-loaded purpose and concise details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the output format (side-by-side table with mana cost, color identity, EDHREC rank, combo count, staples). This is sufficient for the agent to understand what to expect.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, describing both parameters clearly. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it echoes the commander count and output fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 compares 2-5 commanders head-to-head and lists specific comparison dimensions (stats, combos, staples, popularity). It is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like card_comparison or archetype_comparison.

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 a clear context for when to use the tool (comparing multiple commanders) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The context is sufficient for a competent agent to infer usage.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by noting graceful degradation when optional sources are unavailable, which is a behavioral trait beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences efficiently convey purpose, contents, and a key behavioral note (graceful degradation). No redundancy, well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description lists the main categories returned (card details, combos, staples, synergy scores). This provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the output, though more detail on structure would be beneficial.

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 100%, so both parameters are already described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it provides a 'comprehensive commander profile' combining multiple data sources, listing specific outputs (card details, combos, staples, synergy scores). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on single aspects (e.g., edhrec_commander_staples, spellbook_find_combos).

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 when a broad overview is needed, contrasting with single-source tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the context of 'combining all available sources' offers implicit guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds behavioral context such as analyzing mana curve, card roles, and format-specific ratios, which is informative beyond the 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?

The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence, making it easy to understand quickly.

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?

While the description covers the main functionality, it lacks detail on the output format (e.g., structure of suggestions) and doesn't mention constraints like budget or format-specific behaviors beyond what's in the schema. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, more context would be helpful.

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 100% and each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies gaps in a partial decklist and suggests cards to fill them, with analysis of mana curve, roles, and format ratios. This distinguishes it from siblings like deck_analysis or evaluate_upgrade.

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 completing partial decklists but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like suggest_cuts or evaluate_upgrade, nor does it mention when not to use.

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

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

The description reveals precise behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations: it reduces only generic costs, leaves colored pips, hybrids, {C}, and {X} untouched, and clarifies that multiple reducers don't apply to colored portions. No contradiction with 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?

The description is two concise sentences plus a rule reference, all front-loaded with the core action. No filler—every sentence adds value, including the rationale for using the tool.

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 presence of annotations and full schema coverage, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and handling of edge cases (e.g., hybrid mana, {X}). It lacks an explicit description of the output format, but the 'detailed' vs 'concise' parameter provides insight.

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 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not significantly augment the schema's parameter descriptions; it only references the reducer_card's role. The schema's own descriptions are adequate for the parameters.

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 applies a cost reducer mechanically and reports what it does not reduce. This specific verb+resource (apply cost reducer) distinguishes it from sibling tools like rules_interaction or combat_calculator, which handle different aspects of Magic.

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 explicitly advises using this tool instead of prose to avoid arithmetic errors, with a concrete example of past mistakes. It explains the rule's limitation (only reduces generic component). However, it does not explicitly state when to use an alternative, though the context is strong.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds transparency about backend usage (Scryfall bulk data, API fallback, Spellbook, EDHREC) and graceful degradation, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 three paragraphs: a clear summary, backend details, and parameter explanation. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, backend strategy, graceful degradation, and key parameter details. It adequately informs the agent about behavior, though output format is not explicitly described.

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 100%. The description adds significant meaning to 'declared_categories' by explaining its purpose, syntax, and drift measurement, complementing the schema description. Other parameters are standard with sufficient 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 starts with 'Full decklist health check — mana curve, colors, combos, bracket, budget, synergy,' clearly stating the tool's specific purpose and scope. It lists multiple analytical dimensions, distinguishing it from siblings like deck_validate or commander_overview which are more focused.

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 a comprehensive deck analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks direct comparisons or 'do not use if' guidance, though the description of backends and graceful degradation provides some context.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: concurrent execution of six sections, per-section ok/error status, simulation forced to v3, and the role of the rulings section. It does not contradict annotations (the idempotentHint with random seed is a minor nuance but not a contradiction). The added detail goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 longer than minimal but well-structured: a single-sentence summary followed by detailed behavioral notes. It front-loads the purpose and then elaborates. While slightly verbose, each sentence adds value, and there is no fluff. Efficiency could be slightly improved, but it remains effective.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, multiple sections), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the concurrent execution, error handling, simulation version, parameter usage, and even guides the agent on how to use the rulings output. No critical gaps are present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds clarifications for some parameters: decklist specifies 'commander EXCLUDED — a 99-card Commander library', and commander_colors is marked 'REQUIRED so the simulation color screen can never be skipped by omission'. These additions help the agent understand constraints beyond the 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 opens with 'Full mechanical audit battery in ONE call' and lists specific sections (validation, analysis, combos, bracket, commander rulings, v3 simulation), clearly stating the tool's comprehensive purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by bundling multiple functionalities that are available as separate tools (e.g., deck_validate, spellbook_find_combos, spellbook_estimate_bracket, commander_overview).

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 this tool is for a complete audit instead of calling multiple tools individually, as indicated by 'in ONE call'. It provides guidance on error handling ('A failed section NEVER fails the whole bundle') but does not explicitly list alternative tools or scenarios where they should be used instead. Thus, while clear, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context about indexing by mechanic and answers per-card data cannot, including references to rules (601.2f, 702.73a). No contradictions.

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, front-loaded with core operation. Each sentence adds value, though it is somewhat lengthy. Could be slightly more concise but overall efficient.

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 complexity of the tool and absence of output schema, the description covers key aspects: keyword carriers, tribal counts, trigger reach, and explains why it's needed. Minor gap on output format.

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 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds context that the commander seeds mechanic detection and implies decklist is a list of card names. This enhances parameter understanding.

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 'Map the mechanics a deck SHARES' with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating 'Every other tool here is indexed by card. This one is indexed by mechanic.'

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 tells when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Run this before writing any description of how a deck works.' It also lists specific scenarios like keyword carriers, cost reducer analysis, and trigger reach.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying the tool returns VALID or INVALID with actionable error messages, and lists the specific validation checks performed. This context goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences: first states the main purpose, second lists specific checks and return format. No fluff, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the core validation aspects and return format. However, it does not explain that the commander parameter is only required for Commander format (though the schema does), nor does it detail how response_format affects output. Given no output schema, the description could be more explicit about the response structure.

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 100%, so each parameter is already well-documented. The description adds mention of color identity and singleton rules, which imply the commander parameter is needed for Commander, but this is stated in the schema. No additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 validates a decklist against format construction rules, listing specific checks like legality, deck size, copy limits, color identity, singleton rules, and Pauper rarity. This distinctly separates it from sibling tools such as bulk_format_legality (which checks individual card legality), deck_analysis (which provides deeper analysis), and moxfield_decklist (which imports decks).

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 validating decklist construction but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bulk_format_legality or deck_analysis. No exclusion criteria or comparative guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent. Description adds that dates are required by the 17Lands API, which is a minor behavioral detail. Does not contradict 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: first states purpose, second adds critical API constraint. No redundant words, 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?

Adequate for a simple data fetch tool with good annotations. Lacks description of output format or win rate calculation, but given no output schema, this is a minor gap. Siblings often equally brief.

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 covers all parameters (100% coverage). Description adds value by explaining why start_date and end_date are required ('required by 17Lands API'), giving context beyond the schema's format description.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Get win rates by color pair/archetype for a draft set.' Distinguishes from siblings like draft_card_ratings or draft_pack_pick which focus on individual cards or picks, not aggregate stats.

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?

Mentions required date parameters, giving context for when to call this tool. However, no explicit alternatives or when-to-not-use guidance is provided among the many draft-related sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the data skew from 17Lands (56% baseline) and reliability warning for <500 games. This enhances transparency 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?

The description is extremely concise with three sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second lists key metrics, and the third adds a crucial data quality note. No wasted words.

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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by explaining returned metrics and data caveats. It covers the main aspects needed for understanding tool output, though pagination or error handling are not mentioned.

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 100% so baseline is 3. The description explains the meaning of the returned metrics (GIH WR, ALSA, etc.) which are not in the schema, adding substantial value for interpreting results.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'win rate and draft performance data for cards in a set.' This is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings like tournament results or combo browsing.

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?

While explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are absent, the description provides context about metrics and data reliability, which guides appropriate use. It's clear enough to infer the tool is for draft card performance analysis, distinguishing it from general search or game data tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description adds specific behavioral details: it performs pick-by-pick analysis, identifies higher-WR card alternatives, pivot points, and assigns a grade. No contradictions with 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, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value, no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return contents: pick-by-pick analysis, decision points, better card identification, pivot points, and grade. It covers the main aspects well, though could be slightly more specific about the output format.

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 100% and each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it reviews a completed draft with pick-by-pick GIH WR analysis, identifies better picks, pivot points, and gives a draft grade. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like draft_pack_pick or draft_card_ratings.

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 use after a draft is complete, providing analysis and decision points. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the context of siblings makes it clear this is for post-draft review.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by specifying the data source (17Lands), the derived stats, and the requirement for 17Lands to be enabled, providing functional context beyond the 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?

The description is three sentences that efficiently cover purpose, outputs, and prerequisites. No wasted words; each sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description lists the stats returned but does not mention ordering or error handling (e.g., if 17Lands is disabled). However, it is largely complete for an agent to understand inputs and outputs.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that current_picks enables color fit analysis and listing specific stats returned (GIH WR, ALSA, IWD), which are not in the schema. This enhances understanding beyond parameter names and types.

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 ranks cards in a draft pack using 17Lands win rate data, listing specific stats (GIH WR, ALSA, IWD) and color fit analysis. It distinguishes from sibling tools like draft_card_ratings by focusing on in-draft pack ranking with current picks.

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 mentions a prerequisite (17Lands enabled) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like draft_card_ratings or draft_signal_read. The context implies it is for in-draft decisions, but lack of direct comparisons reduces clarity.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the use of ALSA data and the definition of 'open' colors. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not cover data freshness or rate limits.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds essential context. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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 absence of an output schema and the tool's moderate complexity, the description falls short by not explaining the output format or providing example signals. It hints at 'recommend a direction' but leaves the agent guessing about the response structure.

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 100%, so the description does not need to compensate significantly. The schema already describes all parameters adequately. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond what is in the 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 analyzes draft picks and recommends a direction based on color signals using ALSA data. The verb 'analyze' and resource 'draft picks' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like draft_pack_pick, though the mention of ALSA and 'cards seen later than expected' provides some distinction.

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 the tool is used when you have draft picks and want color signal analysis, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the many draft-related sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and behavior. The description adds that the tool returns synergy comparisons and deck counts, but doesn't disclose potential error cases (e.g., invalid card/commander names) or data freshness. The description adds moderate contextual 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no superfluous information. Every sentence adds value, making it concise and efficient.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain the return value structure. It mentions synergy comparison and deck counts but is vague about the format (e.g., score, percentage, raw numbers). This leaves the agent guessing about the exact response shape, which is a significant gap for a tool without output schema.

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 100%, and both parameters are well-described in the schema. The description repeats the parameter roles without adding new semantic details (e.g., formatting requirements or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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: getting synergy data between a specific card and commander. It explains what the data includes (synergy comparison to popularity and deck count), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools that focus on other aspects like staples or overviews.

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 when needing synergy between a card and commander, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Sibling tools like commander_overview or bulk_card_search cover different purposes, but no direct comparison is given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds that the tool shows synergy scores vs. generic popularity, which provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe return format or pagination, so a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, no unnecessary words. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately explains the output includes cards, synergy scores, and inclusion rates. It covers the tool's behavior for a query tool with 4 parameters. Missing details about output structure (e.g., categories) are not critical.

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 100% with all parameters described. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it mentions commander_name implicitly but no additional details on limit, category, or response_format.

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 explicitly states the tool gets the most-played cards for a commander with synergy scores and inclusion rates. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like edhrec_card_synergy by focusing on commander staples rather than synergy for a specific card.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for commander staples but does not mention when not to use it or compare to similar tools like edhrec_card_synergy or commander_overview.

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

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

Description adds value beyond annotations by detailing return values (card details, price, synergy, combos) and noting graceful degradation if optional sources are unavailable. This informs the agent about potential missing data. However, it does not elaborate on what 'degrades gracefully' entails technically.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy. Purpose, output, and edge case (graceful degradation) are front-loaded and efficiently communicated.

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 input schema is complete and no output schema exists, the description adequately explains the return values. It covers card details, price, synergy, combos, and graceful degradation. However, it omits details on how synergy is computed or how the evaluation is structured.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. For example, it does not explain the difference between 'detailed' and 'concise' response formats.

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 assesses whether a card is worth adding to a specific commander deck, which is a distinct verb+resource pair. It differentiates from siblings like edhrec_card_synergy (which only provides synergy scores) by encompassing price, details, and combos. However, it could more explicitly contrast with similar evaluation tools.

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 when evaluating a card for a commander deck but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like spellbook_find_combos or edhrec_commander_staples. No exclusions or contextual cues are provided.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds that it returns a guide with specific content (archetypes, staples, rules summary), but does not describe return format or behavior beyond that. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 consists of two concise sentences. It front-loades the primary purpose and immediately lists the key outputs. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (archetypes sorted by budget, staples, rules summary) and mentions the verbosity option. It does not detail the exact format of output, but the openWorldHint accounts for variability. A small gap in completeness but overall sufficient.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that the budget parameter filters archetypes by budget accessibility and that response_format controls verbosity, tying the parameters to the tool's purpose. This adds value beyond the 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 it is a beginner-oriented guide for entering a competitive format, listing specific outputs (archetypes sorted by budget, cross-archetype staples, format rules summary). This distinguishes it from siblings like archetype_comparison or bulk_format_staples.

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 use for beginners entering a format, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like archetype_comparison or goldfish_format_staples. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which cover safety and side-effect behavior. The description adds that it returns deck metadata and card lists, which is consistent but does not reveal additional behavioral traits 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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The core action and return value are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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?

The description explains the output (deck metadata and card lists) despite no output schema. It covers the essential information for a sample decklist tool. Minor gap: not stating whether the sample is random or top-performing.

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 100% with full descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description mentions 'format' and 'archetype' implicitly but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gets a sample decklist for an archetype in a format, specifying the return of deck metadata and full mainboard/sideboard. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'archetype_decklist' which likely serves a similar purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'archetype_decklist', 'goldfish_metagame', or 'goldfish_format_staples'. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds that it returns an estimated total cost based on current card prices from MTGGoldfish, which is useful context. No contradiction with 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, front-loaded with core purpose. No filler. Efficiently conveys the function and source.

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?

Lacks explanation of the response format, especially given the response_format parameter. No output schema. While annotations are good, the description could detail what 'detailed' vs 'concise' returns.

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 100%, so baseline 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema's property descriptions. It could have explained the response_format parameter's effect.

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 function: 'Get the estimated paper price for an archetype deck.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'estimated paper price for archetype deck' are specific. It is distinct from sibling tools like goldfish_metagame or scryfall_card_price.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for deck price estimation but does not exclude individual card price queries or mention related tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by explaining the metrics (inclusion percentages, average copies), which tells the agent what kind of data to expect. No contradiction with 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 concise sentences: the first states the primary action, the second adds detail. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description effectively communicates the return values (cards, inclusion percentages, average copies). For a read-only retrieval tool, this is sufficient to set expectations.

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 100%; all parameters have descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 retrieves the most-played cards in a format with inclusion percentages and average copies. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('most-played cards'), and the metric details help distinguish it from sibling tools like bulk_format_staples.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like goldfish_metagame or bulk_format_staples. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites is provided.

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

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description's main role is to add behavioral context. It does so by specifying the tool returns data about archetypes, percentages, deck counts, and prices, which is helpful. No contradictions with 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?

The description is only two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the core purpose, and the second lists the outputs. No extraneous words, perfectly concise 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 no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (archetypes, percentages, deck counts, prices), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the output. It does not mention pagination or sorting, but overall it is adequately complete.

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 100% and the parameters (format, response_format) are well-documented in the schema with examples and enum values. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what is already in the 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 verb (Get) and resource (current metagame breakdown for a competitive format). It lists specific outputs (top archetypes, meta share percentages, deck counts, estimated paper prices), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like goldfish_archetype_list or goldfish_format_staples.

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 indicates usage for 'a competitive format,' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like metagame_snapshot or goldfish_archetype_list. No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, ensuring safety. The description adds behavioral context: it uses closed-form hypergeometric distribution, performs drift detection when decklist+category_filter is provided, and warns about the risk of uncounted copies. No contradiction with 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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and includes an engaging example, but the cautionary story adds length without essential information. It could be more concise without losing clarity.

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?

Despite covering parameters and usage, the description fails to specify the return format or structure. With no output schema, agents lack critical information about what the tool returns (e.g., probability value, drift details), making it incomplete.

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 100% with descriptions for all 7 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the interaction between decklist and category_filter for measured counts, and the drift concept, which is not captured in individual parameter 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 computes exact hypergeometric probability for card categories, with a specific example. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like simulate_opening_hands, which use simulation, and other deck analysis tools.

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 explains how to use the tool for probability queries and highlights the drift-checking feature when providing a decklist and category_filter. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is sufficient for typical usage.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, confirming safe read behavior. The description adds value by specifying output content: rules definition, reminder text, and up to 5 example cards. No contradictions with 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 with no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second adds specifics about output. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema, full annotations), the description covers purpose, output, and usage adequately. It could mention the format of keyword input, but that is already in the schema parameter description.

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 100%, with both parameters fully described in the schema. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explains an MTK keyword with rules text, examples, and interactions. It uses specific verb 'Explain' and resource 'MTG keyword', and distinguishes from sibling tools like scryfall_search_cards (card search) or rules_lookup (general rules).

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 keyword explanation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like rules_lookup or scryfall_card_details. No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, so safety profile is clear. Description adds value by disclosing data sources (MTGGoldfish primary, Spicerack fallback) and output content, enhancing behavioral transparency 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?

Three efficient sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then output contents, then data sources. No redundant information.

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 low parameter count, rich annotations, and read-only nature, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, output contents, and data sources. Missing minor details like pagination or response format behavior, but not required for this tool's simplicity.

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 100% (both 'format' and 'response_format' have descriptions). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'metagame breakdown for a competitive format', listing content (archetypes, shares, tier, prices). It distinguishes the tool's scope from siblings by specifying data sources but does not explicitly differentiate from related tools like goldfish_metagame or archetype_comparison.

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 the tool is for obtaining a current metagame snapshot but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use context is given.

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

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) and adds context that only metadata is returned, not full card list. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with action and purpose. No unnecessary words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists example metadata fields (name, format, author, dates) and directs to sibling for full list. Complete for a simple metadata lookup 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a detailed description for deck_id (supporting ID or full URL). The tool description adds no extra parameter info, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves metadata for a Moxfield deck, listing specific fields (name, format, author, dates). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool moxfield_decklist by noting that it returns metadata without the full card list.

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 explicit guidance: use this tool for metadata without the full card list, and use 'decklist' for the complete card list. This clearly distinguishes when to use each sibling tool.

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

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, open-world, and idempotent. Description adds value by specifying the return structure (organized by board with names/quantities), which is beyond what annotations cover. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded with purpose and immediate detail. No filler or repeated information.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return format (organized by board with names/quantities). Lacks error handling or rate limit info, but for a simple fetch tool it is sufficiently complete given the annotations.

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 100% and includes a detailed description of deck_id. The description rephrases 'by deck ID or URL' but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Fetch', resource 'full decklist from Moxfield', and method 'by deck ID or URL'. Distinguishes from siblings like moxfield_deck_info which likely returns deck metadata, not the full list.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., moxfield_deck_info, moxfield_search_decks). The description only describes what it does, not when to choose it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, clearly signaling safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the output format (paginated deck summaries with fields like name, format, author) and that it searches public decks, complementing the annotations with concrete behavioral 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 three concise sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the purpose, then lists the output fields. Every sentence adds value, including the pagination mention and field enumeration.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 optional params, fully documented schema, and annotations), the description provides a complete mental model: what the tool searches, what it returns (paginated list with key fields), and the filtering dimensions. No output schema exists, but the description covers return values adequately for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema itself documents all 5 parameters. The description restates 'format, keyword, or sort order' but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 public Moxfield decks by format, keyword, or sort order, and specifies the returned fields (name, format, author, colors, card counts). It distinguishes from sibling Moxfield tools like moxfield_deck_info and moxfield_user_decks by focusing on search across all public decks.

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 use for finding decks on Moxfield but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., moxfield_user_decks for a specific user). No when-not or exclusion criteria are given, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by disclosing the verification step (checking user existence) and the optional format filtering, providing behavioral context beyond the 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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning. No unnecessary text.

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 simple read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior: what it does, prerequisites (user existence), and optional filtering. No gaps remain.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions: it reaffirms the optional format filter but does not provide new semantic details.

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: listing a user's public decks on Moxfield. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like moxfield_search_decks by being user-specific.

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 you need decks for a specific user) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct comparisons to alternatives like moxfield_search_decks. It mentions prerequisite verification (user exists) but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description only adds that it returns 'pong'. This is consistent and adds minor value beyond the 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?

The description is extremely concise, a single sentence that is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.

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 zero-parameter health check tool with an output schema, the description is complete and tells the agent exactly what to expect.

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?

No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100% (empty). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information.

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 performs a health check and returns 'pong', which is a specific verb+resource. It is distinct from all sibling tools which are MTG-related.

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 use for checking service liveness, but does not explicitly exclude any scenarios or mention alternatives. However, given the tool's simplicity, this is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds that the tool pairs each upgrade with a specific cut and explains synergy improvement. This provides some behavioral context beyond annotations, but it does not disclose details about output format, limitations, or data sources.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the primary action and the second adding important detail about pairing cuts with synergy explanation. Every sentence is useful, and the information is front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers the core functionality but lacks details about edge cases, error conditions, or the nature of the output. Given the complexity of suggesting upgrades with cuts, the description is adequate but not thorough. The absence of an output schema is not compensated by additional description of return values.

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 100%, so all parameters are already described in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what is in the schema. It mentions 'identifying weakest cards' and 'suggesting replacements' but does not elaborate on how budget, num_upgrades, or response_format affect behavior.

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 it analyzes a Commander precon and suggests upgrades with specific cuts and synergy explanations. The verb 'upgrade' and resource 'precon' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like evaluate_upgrade, budget_upgrade, or suggest_cuts, which have similar purposes.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., needing the decklist and commander) or indicate situations where other tools might be more appropriate. The description leaves the agent without clear usage boundaries.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral details: it uses Scryfall bulk data, returns a markdown table with specific price types and sorting. No contradictions with 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the action and output, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 schema and annotations, the description is adequate. It explains the output format (markdown table with currencies) which is missing from schema. No output schema exists, so the description compensates. Could mention caching or data freshness, but not critical.

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 100% (both parameters described). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema regarding parameters. The response_format parameter is mentioned indirectly via output format, but no new semantic insight.

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 compares prices across multiple cards using Scryfall bulk data, and specifies the output format (markdown table with USD, USD foil, EUR prices sorted by USD descending). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scryfall_card_price (single card price) and card_comparison (likely stat comparison).

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 indicates when to use (comparing prices across multiple cards) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or point to alternative tools. However, the purpose is clear and context is provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, safe, idempotent. Description adds useful context: returns sets with rotation dates and suggests replacements for rotating cards.

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 concise paragraphs, front-loaded with main purpose, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Tool is simple with two optional parameters. Description fully explains both use cases (general info vs. specific cards) and expected outputs.

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 100%, so baseline 3. Description restates parameter purpose ('if cards provided') but adds no new semantic detail beyond what's in the 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?

Description clearly states the tool checks Standard rotation status and identifies rotating cards, with specific outputs like sets with dates and card-specific suggestions. Distinct from siblings.

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?

Implies when to use: to get general rotation info or check specific cards. No explicit alternatives mentioned, but the focus on rotation is unique among siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description adds return format details but not additional behavioral traits like rate limits or auth requirements. No contradiction.

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 front-load purpose and outputs with no wasted words. Every sentence is valuable and concise.

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?

Explains core functionality and return values given no output schema. However, missing mention of the response_format parameter and its effect on output, which is a minor gap.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented. The description adds 'mechanics or cards' context but does not significantly extend schema meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 explains interactions between two mechanics or cards under MTG rules, listing outputs like relevant rules, step-by-step resolution, and common misconceptions. It is distinct from siblings like rules_lookup or keyword_explain.

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 interaction questions but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives (e.g., not for single rule queries). No clear context or exclusions provided.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, indicating safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds context about return structure (full text, parent context, subrules) 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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently summarizes the return format.

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?

Without an output schema, the description hints at the return format (full text, parent context, subrules), which is helpful. Combined with complete schema coverage and annotations, it is fairly complete for a lookup 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 looks up MTG Comprehensive Rules by number or keyword search, using a specific verb ('look up') and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that search cards or decks.

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 explains two methods (number or keyword) and what is returned, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like scryfall_search_cards or keyword_explain. Usage context is implied rather than specified.

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

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning coverage of priority, stack, state-based actions, triggers, and rule citations, which goes beyond what annotations offer.

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 concise (3 lines) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no waste.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description hints at output including rule citations. For a complex scenario resolver, it could specify output structure more, but overall it is adequate given the annotations and simplicity.

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 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add new meaning beyond what's in the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'resolve', the resource 'game scenario', and the scope 'step-by-step using MTG rules' with specific coverage of priority, stack, etc. It distinguishes from siblings like 'keyword_explain' or 'rules_interaction' by focusing on scenario resolution.

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 resolving game scenarios but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rules_interaction' or 'rules_lookup'. No exclusions or context for when not to use it.

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