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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail about the payload — notes, context, who it is waiting on and since when, and a chronological history of create/move/edit/review/archive/restore events ordered oldest first. It stops short of noting limits (pagination, history truncation), so not a full 5.

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?

One dense but well-ordered sentence that front-loads the precondition, then the payload, then the exclusion. It is longer than minimal but each clause carries routing or payload information an agent needs.

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 usefully enumerates what the call returns (details plus an ordered history), which is the main thing an agent would otherwise lack. Minor gaps remain around history size/ordering guarantees and whether archived cards are returned, but the definition is largely self-sufficient for a one-parameter read tool.

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 100% with a single cardId parameter whose schema description matches the text ('from a list, search, or earlier result'). The description adds no format, validation, or edge-case semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a precise verb+resource ('get_card' returns a card's full details and history) and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling search_cards. An agent can distinguish it from list_cards, search_cards, and update_card without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('when you already have a card id ... from a list, a search, or an earlier result') and a negative rule ('Do not use to find a card by text — use search_cards'), naming the alternative tool directly. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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