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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the return scope: full card detail plus a few related cards from the same set. It does not describe error behavior, pagination, read-only status, or how 'related' is determined, so transparency is only partial.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds the related-card caveat. There is no filler, no redundancy with the title or schema, and every phrase earns its place.

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 one-parameter lookup, the description is mostly adequate, but there is no output schema and no detail about what 'full detail' includes. The vague notion of 'a few related cards from the same set' also leaves room for confusion with get_set_checklist or find_variants.

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%, so the input schema already documents card_id sufficiently. The description only restates that card_id identifies the card, adding no format, example, or behavioral nuance beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the resource (a single card) and the lookup mechanism (by card_id), and adds a distinguishing detail: it also returns a few related cards from the same set. This separates it from broad search/browse tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like find_variants or get_set_checklist.

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 phrase 'by its card_id' implies the tool is for callers who already have a specific identifier, which is useful. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over search_cards, identify_card, or get_set_checklist, so the routing decision is only implied.

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