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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only lists return fields. It does not state that the operation is a read, what happens if the stack does not exist or is private, or whether the caller needs access to the owner's namespace.

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 no filler, and the resource identity is front-loaded. The phrase "its copy" is condensed to the point of being opaque, but there is no wasted 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?

The description partially compensates for the absent output schema by naming the returned fields, which is genuinely useful for a two-parameter fetch. However, jargon like "copy" and "tier" is never grounded, and failure/permission behavior is left entirely unstated.

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 100%, so both owner and slug are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no further meaning about their format or relationship. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the resource (a single stack) and enumerates what comes back (copy, tools, tier, revision), but it is a noun phrase with no verb and relies on the jargon term "card," which the agent cannot resolve. It also never contrasts itself with get_manifest or search_stacks, so the distinction is only inferable from the names.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus the sibling tools (search_stacks for lookup, get_manifest, get_install_plan) and no prerequisites such as needing a known owner and slug. The agent must infer that this is the single-item fetch that follows a search.

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