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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered by structured data. Beyond that, the description adds essentially nothing: it does not say what a 'relationship card' contains, whether the tool requires a resolved company node, or how it behaves when neither domain nor object_id is supplied (0 required params). Minimal added value over annotations.

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?

It is a single short sentence, so nothing is wasteful in length. However, the phrasing is awkward and self-referential ('a view drawing a company_card'), which impedes rather than aids comprehension, so brevity does not translate into clarity.

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 2-parameter lookup tool with no output schema and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description should explain what the returned card is and how to identify the target company. It leaves the domain/object_id selection and the meaning of 'relationship card' entirely unspecified.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description does not clarify the domain-vs-object_id relationship, nor which one is preferred or what happens when both or neither are given, so it neither helps nor hurts beyond the baseline.

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 the resource ('relationship card for one company') and hints at what it feeds ('a view drawing a company_card'), but there is no clear verb and the phrase 'for a view drawing a company_card' is circular and muddled. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_person_card or get_object_card, forcing the agent to infer the company-vs-person-vs-object split from the name alone.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_person_card, get_object_card, or get_domain_info. The only contextual hint ('for a view drawing a company_card') implies it is a rendering dependency, but no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are given.

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