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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining what the returned card contains: API details, example request, key and limits, download options, license quotes, agent rules, and build ideas.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the tool's output. The long parenthetical and contents list are dense but each item describes useful card content, so there is little wasted text.

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 simple one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is complete enough because it explains the card's contents. The main missing piece is explicit routing guidance versus sibling search/detail tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'resource' parameter. The description adds value by giving concrete examples of resource types such as USGS earthquakes, NASA images, Open Library, and Met Museum, which helps clarify what a valid resource refers to.

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 that this tool returns the full AgentGid card for a single resource, and it lists the card's contents. It is specific about the verb and resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as find_resources or get_api.

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 that this is a detail lookup by saying it returns a 'full card,' but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of find_resources or get_api. There are no alternatives or exclusions named.

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