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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is already communicated. The description is consistent with that and adds the ordering semantics, but does not disclose whether the reorder persists permanently, whether it is reversible, or what the result looks like. With annotations covering safety, 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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and then the options. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations that already cover the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient. The main residual gap is whether sorting mutates persisted card order irreversibly, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It defines all three enum values concretely, including tie-break rules ('soonest first, undated last', 'newest first'), which the bare enum does not convey. Only listId is left unexplained, which is largely self-evident.

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 a specific verb ('reorders') and resource ('a list's cards') and enumerates the three supported orderings. No sibling tool performs sorting, so an agent can identify this immediately.

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?

Usage is implied by the description ('reorders'), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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