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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the composition of the result (explicit links plus same-shelf siblings), but says nothing about read-only semantics, result limits, ordering, or authorization. Partial behavioral disclosure only.

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?

A single compact line with the core operation front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the bracketed tag occupies prime space ahead of the actual verb.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and return composition adequately. It stops short of stating result cardinality, ordering, or read-only behavior, leaving an agent with a couple of open questions before calling it.

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 single 'id' parameter has no schema description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. 'Related to one card' implies the input identifies a card, which is minimal but real semantic grounding; it does not state the id format or whether it accepts a slug, uuid, or title.

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 resource (cards related to one card) and even decomposes the result set into 'explicit links + same-shelf siblings', which tells an agent exactly what it gets back. The '[FIND · internal]' tag further orients it as a lookup operation. It is distinguishable from card_get, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named despite siblings like card_get, cards_browse, and shelf_read that an agent could confuse it with. The 'internal' marker hints at scope but gives no actionable routing rule.

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