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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the matching strategy (id, then title, then ranked search), which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It says nothing about whether the call is read-only, what permissions are needed, or what is returned, leaving meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb, resource, and scope, then states the fallback chain. No filler and nothing to trim.

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 finder with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and matching behavior, but omits the return shape (single card vs. list), read-only status, and ambiguity behavior when multiple cards match. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 parameter q has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that q can be an exact id, a title, or a ranked search phrase, which is real meaning beyond the bare type/maxLength schema.

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 names a specific verb (find) and resource (the card) and even discloses the resolution order (exact id, then title, else ranked search), which tells an agent exactly what this tool resolves. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as card_get, lookup, or search, so it falls short of a 5.

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 '[FIND · internal]' prefix implies this is an internal-facing lookup tool, and the resolution order implies it accepts flexible queries. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus search, lookup, or card_get, so usage must be inferred.

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