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 provides some useful constraints ('one bounded page', 'no raw model output, no oracles'), but omits search matching semantics, result format, ordering, and pagination behavior beyond the vague 'bounded page.'

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 at two short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and a clarifying exclusion in the second sentence. 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?

This is a six-parameter search tool with no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions. The description leaves agents guessing about filter meaning, result shape, and how this relates to sibling tools like search, catalog, and read_card. It is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the six parameters. 'Bounded page' hints at limit/offset semantics, but suite, domain, card_id, and product filters are left undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 and resource: 'Search one bounded page of existing run cards.' It also distinguishes from raw model output and oracles, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search or read_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?

The description implies when to use the tool—when searching existing run cards rather than raw model output or oracles—but it never explicitly states when to choose this over siblings like search, catalog, or read_card. Context is inferred rather than instructed.

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