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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation is paginated and returns summaries ('card briefs'), implying a read-only listing. But it doesn't explicitly state read-only, auth requirements, default ordering/pagination behavior, or error handling.

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, no filler. Front-loaded with the main action and resource, then qualifies with pagination and shelf filter. Efficient.

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 list tool, the description covers pagination and filtering, but the ambiguous 'keeping' and lack of output schema/details about card briefs leave some context gaps, especially with no annotations. It's adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so description must compensate. 'paginated' implies limit/offset control, and 'optional shelf filter' explains the shelf parameter. However, it doesn't describe parameter defaults, permitted values, or behavior when omitted.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Browse') plus resource ('the keeping'), and notes pagination and optional shelf filter, and 'returns card briefs' clarifies output. It distinguishes from sibling tools like card_get (single card) and cards_stats (aggregate stats), though 'keeping' is a domain term requiring context.

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?

Implied usage: use when you want to browse cards in a paginated list, optionally filtered by shelf. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use or mention of alternative tools (e.g., card_get for individual card), so it lacks clear exclusion criteria.

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