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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds ordering (newest first) and the shape of each returned record, which the annotations do not. It does not mention pagination or default 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?

A single dense sentence with the resource description front-loaded, followed immediately by the routing hint. 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully describes the return fields and ordering, which is the main gap it must fill. The only shortfall is the unexplained limit parameter, minor for a 2-parameter list 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 only 50% — limit is undocumented in both schema and description — and the description never mentions either parameter or how filtering by contact_id interacts with the pending-decision scope. It does not compensate for the coverage 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 states a specific resource and scope — cards waiting for a person's decision — and enumerates the returned fields (id, lead/deal, kind, title, filing reason). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like read_a_card or approve_a_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?

It tells the agent this is the queue of pending-decision cards and routes to read_a_card to open one, giving clear context for when to call it. It stops short of exclusions, e.g. whether done/closed cards are retrieved elsewhere.

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