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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the key behavioral fact that the card 'stays in its list and counts as reviewed now,' which the annotations do not express. It doesn't cover auth or rate limits, but the main state effect is disclosed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case, followed by the exclusion and alternatives. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 simple one-parameter tool, idempotent/non-destructive annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, routing, and the state outcome, and the 'Returns the card' note handles the return value even though no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100% and the single cardId parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 specific verb ('mark... reviewed') and resource ('card'), and the description explicitly scopes it to a weekly review with 'keep' intent. It distinguishes itself from sibling mutation tools by naming move_card, update_card, and archive_card as the wrong choices for change scenarios.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('during a weekly review when the user keeps a card as it is') and when-not-to-use ('Do not use when the card should change'), with the correct alternatives named. Nothing is left to inference about routing.

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