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

It states the effect (allowing extra new cards) and the return value (total extra granted today). It does not mention whether multiple boosts accumulate or whether they affect only today's quota, but the 'today only' phrasing is transparent enough.

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 tight sentences cover the action, scope, and return value. No fluff or redundancy; the structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the description already covers purpose, parameters, scope, and return, nothing essential is missing. The tool's behavior is fully understandable from the description.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema and reinforced in the description: deck (optional, account-wide if omitted) and extra (count, range 1-500). No ambiguity remains.

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 the action ('Allow extra new cards for today only'), gives a concrete usage example, and distinguishes scope (deck vs account-wide). It is specific about the resource and the temporary nature.

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 provides a clear usage scenario ('give me 10 more new cards today') and highlights the key differentiator ('for today only'). It does not explicitly compare with set_limits or other sibling tools, but the temporal scope is evident.

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