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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful disclosure about the returned fields, but it does not describe behavior for missing or invalid card ids, authentication needs, or any other operational context beyond what the annotations provide.

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 a single efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and then lists the returned fields. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague text.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one required parameter and no output schema. The description compensates for the missing output schema by listing the returned fields, and the annotations cover the safety profile. Minor gaps remain around invalid-id behavior and the exact id format, but the definition is largely complete for this tool's complexity.

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 single card_id parameter is documented only by its name and the description's phrase 'by id'. The description does not specify the expected id format, where to obtain the id, or any constraints, so it only minimally compensates for the schema gap.

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 and resource: it returns details for one card by id, and it enumerates the fields returned (title, occasion, formats, price, links). It clearly contrasts with a list/search operation by emphasizing a single card and an id lookup, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as search_cards.

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 phrase 'by id' implies the tool should be used when the caller already has a card identifier, which is useful context against search_cards. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus search_cards or request_card, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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