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

The annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the answer should be read aloud and followed by a specific submit_review call, but it does not fully explain whether show_answer itself has no other effects. This is still a good amount of added context beyond the annotations.

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 short, direct, and free of unnecessary details. It packs the purpose, usage condition, and required follow-up into two sentences without any fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool's purpose, trigger condition, and post-action are all covered. The actual return shape is not described, but since the instruction says to 'read it aloud,' an agent understands that the output is the answer text. Minor gap: it does not address what to do if no card is found or if the card_id is invalid.

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 only parameter, card_id, is not described in the tool description. The parameter name is fairly self-explanatory and the description mentions 'a card's back,' but with 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate more by explicitly tying card_id to the card being queried.

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 tool's function: 'Get a card's back (the answer).' It also distinguishes this from study/review actions by framing it as the 'answer' reveal, so an agent can easily tell it apart from related tools like list_cards or submit_review.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Use when the user gives up or asks for the answer.' It also provides the exact follow-up action, 'read it aloud, then call submit_review with rating 1,' leaving no ambiguity about the intended workflow.

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