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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read one card in full' aligns with those. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by detailing exactly what data is returned and emphasizing that only the uid is required, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 dense but efficient, front-loading the core purpose and then listing the exact returned fields. The long enumeration is warranted given there is no output schema, and there is no filler or redundancy. It could be slightly more scannable, but every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the agent will receive, and it does so comprehensively: it lists every card component from AgileHero Markup and description_version through threaded comments. It also covers the only input requirement and the source of valid ids, making the tool fully actionable.

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 input schema already fully documents the id parameter with 'The unique identifier of the card'. The description adds value by specifying that this is a card uid, that it is the only needed input, and that valid uids come from list_cards, search, or search_cards — useful provenance not present in 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 opens with 'Read one card in full', a precise verb-resource pairing that clearly distinguishes this from list_cards, search_cards, and other get_* siblings. It then enumerates the full payload scope (description, block ids, placement, epic, labels, assignees, etc.), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 gives clear context: it takes a card uid alone, explicitly notes there is no project_id parameter, and tells the agent where card uids come from ('Card uids come from list_cards, search or search_cards'). It stops short of explicitly contrasting with sibling tools or saying when not to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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