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

The description adds behavioral context by specifying the two categories of related cards (explicit links and same-shelf siblings), which goes beyond the tool name. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose read-only status, pagination, ordering, or whether the source card is included, leaving significant gaps.

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 a single sentence with no filler; it front-loads the core purpose and uses a dash to add clarifying detail. Excellent conciseness.

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 tool with no annotations or output schema, the description defines the scope but omits output format, whether the input card is included, and any limitations or ordering. It is adequate for a simple read but not fully complete.

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 one required 'id' with no description, and the description does not elaborate on what the id represents or how to format it. The phrase 'one card' weakly implies it is a card identifier, but this does not compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose as returning cards related to a given card, and defines 'related' as explicit links and same-shelf siblings. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like card_get (single card) and cards_browse (all cards), though it lacks an explicit action verb.

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 the tool is for retrieving connected cards, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as cross_references or cards_browse. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given.

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