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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: chunks are returned, focus_query influences which chunks are selected, max_chunks constrains volume, and card_ids enables bulk execution. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence establishes purpose, the second covers control parameters, and the third covers bulk support. Every sentence adds value with no filler.

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 read-only retrieval tool with strong annotations, the description is largely sufficient: it states what is returned, how to focus results, how to limit volume, and how to batch. It does not describe the exact chunk return format or the account parameter, but given the tool's moderate complexity, this is a minor gap.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates well for key parameters: focus_query selects which chunks return, max_chunks has range 1-50 and default 20, and card_ids enables batched execution. However, the account parameter is left undocumented, and card_id is only implicit from the tool's purpose.

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 clearly states that the tool returns the content of a specific card as chunks, which distinguishes it from siblings like recall_list_cards and recall_search. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' or 'returns', so it is clear but not maximally precise.

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?

Usage context is implied: it is for accessing a specific card's content, and guidance is given for focus_query and max_chunks. There is no explicit mention of when to prefer this over recall_search or recall_list_cards, nor any exclusion/alternative guidance.

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