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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the bar is lower, but the description adds nothing behavioral: no error behavior for an unknown or malformed object_id, no indication of what fields come back, and no note on authorization scope. It is essentially a restatement of the name.

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 short sentence with the core action front-loaded. The trailing 'for a view drawing an object_card' is mildly circular with the tool name, but it is brief enough not to be wasteful.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It still leaves undefined what a 'brain object' is and how this differs from get_graph_object, which an agent needs in order to pick correctly.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage ('Exact node id.'), the schema fully documents the input, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by id' confirms the identifier semantics but adds no format, source, or constraint detail beyond the 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 (get) and resource (one brain object by id), and the 'object_card' framing distinguishes it from the person/company card siblings. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close neighbors like get_graph_object or get_artifact, which an agent might reasonably consider for the same task.

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 clause 'for a view drawing an object_card' hints at the consumer (a view render), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative such as get_graph_object or list_graph_objects. The agent is left to infer routing on its own.

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