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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, but the description adds valuable context beyond that by stating that raw source and source packages are never returned. This tells the agent what the response will not contain, which is not covered by the annotation. This is a meaningful behavioral disclosure, earning a 4.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the core action and a clear exclusion. Every word earns its place, and the structure is excellent.

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 read operation with a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers what it does and what it excludes. It does not discuss error conditions or return format, but those are minor for a tool this straightforward. The context is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'verification report', which maps to the 'include_verification' parameter, but it does not explicitly state that the parameter controls whether the report is included. It also does not elaborate on 'card_id' beyond its obvious purpose. The description adds some value but could be more explicit, so a 3 is fair.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('one Target5 tool card'), and what it returns ('plus its verification report'). It also explicitly clarifies what it does NOT return ('raw source and source packages are never returned'), which distinguishes it from potential alternatives. This is clear and unambiguous.

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 implies use for fetching a single card by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'apex_query_cards' (which likely lists cards) or provide exclusions. There is no 'use this when...' or 'for listing, use X instead' guidance. It provides context but not explicit routing, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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