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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safe read-only nature. The description adds no further behavioral disclosure, such as pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The mention of filters is parameter-level, not behavioral. With annotations covering the safety profile, the lack of additional context yields a low score.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the primary action and the optional filters. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. There is no redundant information, making it appropriately sized 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 simple read-only list tool with an output schema and only three optional parameters, the description is mostly adequate. It covers the core functionality and filtering options. However, it does not mention default behavior or pagination, and the limit parameter is undocumented both in schema and description. Given the output schema likely defines the return shape, the description remains sufficient for a straightforward tool, but a note about limit or result size would improve completeness.

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 67%: deck and search have descriptions, limit does not. The description echoes the deck and search filters but does not mention limit or explain its semantics. It adds marginal value over the schema by confirming the filter types, but it does not compensate for the undocumented limit parameter. This falls between high and low coverage, so a 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'cards', and mentions optional filters (deck name or search term). This unambiguously distinguishes it from card mutation tools like create_cards, delete_card, and update_card, and from list_decks which targets a different resource.

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 when to use this tool (to retrieve cards with optional filtering) and gives context about the filtering options. It does not explicitly contrast with list_decks or other read operations, but the resource difference is obvious. No exclusions are stated, but the context is clear.

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