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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says this is an alias and instructs which parameters to pass; it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, whether side effects are possible, or any error/authorization behavior beyond what the name hints.

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 and front-loads the most important fact: this is an alias of read_card. Every word earns its place, though the brevity also contributes to a lack of behavioral context.

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 is a thin alias reference and gives the basic parameter pattern, but with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the agent without explicit knowledge of return values, error conditions, or whether exactly one of id/card_id is required. It relies heavily on the agent already knowing read_card's behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. 'Pass id or card_id' adds the meaningful insight that the two parameters are alternative identifier options, which is not evident from the bare schema. It does not explain precedence, requiredness, or value 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 identifies the tool as an alias of read_card, which names a specific resource and operation. It distinguishes fetch from all siblings by explicitly pointing to its canonical counterpart, though it does not independently define what 'read_card' does.

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 instruction 'Pass id or card_id' gives a direct usage directive, and the alias statement implies fetch should be used exactly where read_card would be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer fetch over read_card or provide any exclusions relative to other sibling tools.

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