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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: result ordering (newest first), the field set returned, pagination presence, and the notable exclusion of website-created cards and email sending. It stops short of stating default page size or rate/limit 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope and ordering, then the return shape, then the usage pointer and exclusions. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 does the right thing by listing returned fields, and it notes pagination and ordering. Small gaps remain: no default limit or guidance on iterating the cursor, and 'revisions' is left undefined.

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 and it only partially does: 'with pagination' implies cursor/limit semantics but never explains the limit range (1-20), the default, or that cursor is an opaque numeric offset token. An agent can guess usage but has no stated contract.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource plus scope: 'List cards and drafts created through BeingSo MCP by the connected account, newest first.' It also enumerates the returned fields (titles, recipient names, creation times, revisions, draft_ids) and explicitly excludes website-created cards, so an agent knows exactly what set this tool operates on.

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 gives a clear use case and next step: 'Use to find a previously created card, then get_ecard to recover its content and sharing links.' It also states a negative boundary (no website-created cards, sends no email). What's missing is explicit routing against the closest sibling, search_ecards, which is never named.

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