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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true, while the description describes a pure read operation ("Get full details"). This is a direct contradiction, making the tool's safety profile untrustworthy. No other behavioral traits are disclosed, and the contradiction prevents the description from providing reliable context.

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 one front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds specific information about what details are returned, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 one-parameter getter, the description covers the operation, object, and key return content, which is mostly sufficient. However, the contradictory destructiveHint annotation and the lack of any note about safety or return format leave the overall definition internally inconsistent.

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?

The single parameter is fully covered by the schema, including an example value and guidance to use list_cards to discover ids. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond indicating the id selects a single card, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and object: "Get full details for a single card," and enumerates the delivered content (multipliers, benefits, welcome bonus, source URL). This clearly distinguishes it from list, compare, and rank sibling tools.

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 main description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, but the id parameter's schema description provides a useful workflow cue: "Use list_cards to discover ids." This implies this tool is the detail-retrieval step after listing, but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like cards_compare_cards.

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