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

With empty annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states that it returns a list, which implicitly indicates a read operation, but it does not mention any permissions, idempotency, pagination, or other behavioral details. The repeated sentence adds no extra transparency.

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 somewhat bloated because the first sentence is repeated verbatim. The @param and @return sections add structure, but the redundancy makes it less concise than ideal. A single sentence plus parameter details would be cleaner.

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 list operation with a provided output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter origins. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, and the redundant text adds noise. The overall completeness is adequate but not rich, leaving gaps in when and how to use it effectively.

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%, but the description explicitly documents all three parameters via @param lines: api_key, token, and wallet_fk. It explains the origin and purpose of each, such as 'wallet_api_token provided by /access/login' and 'wallet_fk provided by /access/login', adding significant meaning beyond the bare type declarations 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 clearly states 'Returns a list of tokenised Visa/Mastercard(s) associated with this wallet', specifying the verb (returns), resource (list of card details), and scope (associated with this wallet). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'wallet_card_remove' (removal) and 'wallet_voucher_list' (vouchers).

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 usage by describing the function, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide context on exclusions. There is no mention of alternative tools for listing cards, though the sibling list includes similar list operations like 'wallet_accounts_list'.

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