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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, openWorld=true, and idempotent=false, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds the genuinely important fact that Keeploop's permission checks apply exactly as for a direct call, which matters for a meta-tool that proxies other tools. It stops short of describing error or failure 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the scoping constraint, and no filler. It is arguably too terse for a nested-object meta-tool, but every word earns its place and 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?

The output schema means return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. But for a tool that dynamically invokes arbitrary other tools with 0% documented parameters and a free-form nested object, the description omits how `tool` and `arguments` relate to the proxied call and when a card button is actually available.

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 carries the full burden. 'run a card button's tool' only weakly implies that `tool` names the target tool; the required `arguments` object — which is free-form with additionalProperties — is never mentioned or explained, and there is no guidance on how arguments should be shaped.

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+resource: run a card button's tool. The 'Card only' qualifier scopes it away from keeploop_card_status and keeploop_card_thread, which is useful. It is clear but does not explicitly name a sibling or explain what a 'card button' is, so an agent must infer the card UI context.

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?

'Card only' gives a usage condition and the permissions sentence tells the agent this is not a privileged bypass. However, there is no when-not guidance and no named alternative for invoking tools outside a card context, leaving routing to inference.

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