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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavioral algorithm (exact id → title → ranked search), which is valuable. It does not cover return format, errors, or edge cases, but for a lookup tool this gives substantial insight beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and fallback behavior with no filler or redundant content.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and search strategy. It could mention what a successful result looks like or whether multiple matches are returned, but the current text is reasonably complete for a simple locate operation.

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 schema only defines q as a string with maxLength 4000. The description adds meaning by indicating q can be an exact id, a title, or a free-text search query, which greatly clarifies how the parameter should be used despite 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 uses a specific verb ('Find'), names the resource ('the card'), and explains the lookup strategy ('by exact id, then title, else ranked search'). This clearly distinguishes it from broader tools like search or cards_browse by specifying the resolution order.

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 when to use the tool: when you need to locate a card from a query. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like card_get or search, leaving the usage boundaries somewhat implicit.

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