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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: empty lists return 200, house probes are excluded, and occupancy is unchanged—details an agent would not otherwise know from 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?

Every sentence earns its place: endpoint, resource, status behavior, exclusion, and side-effect. The description is tightly front-loaded with the most important identification first and contains no filler 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?

For a read-only list tool with a rich output schema and detailed parameter descriptions, the description covers the essential non-schema facts: endpoint semantics, empty-list behavior, and exclusions. It is slightly incomplete in not clarifying when auth parameters are relevant or how this relates to card_get, but the output schema and annotations fill most gaps.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3 even though the tool description itself says nothing about parameters. The description does not need to repeat the schema's detailed parameter documentation, and it adds no parameter-specific semantics of its own.

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 names the specific verb and resource ('GET /api/card') and states the resource is 'Published public cards,' which is clear. It also adds a scope exclusion ('House probes are not listed'), but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling card_get tool by name.

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 the tool: to list published public cards, and it gives one exclusion ('House probes are not listed'). However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over card_get or card_publish, nor does it describe any call context such as whether auth parameters are needed for public lists.

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