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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a removal and that confirmation is required, which is useful for a destructive action. However, it does not discuss irreversibility, permission requirements, or what happens after removal, leaving gaps in 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 repetitive: the opening sentence is duplicated verbatim ('Removes a tokenised Visa/Mastercard(s) associated with this wallet.') followed by the exact same sentence. While the @param structure is clear, the duplication wastes space and distracts.

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 covers the core action, parameter origins, and confirmation requirement, but lacks details about the confirmation flow, side effects, or prerequisites beyond the parameters. The output schema exists, so return values need not be elaborated, but the missing behavioral context makes it only adequate.

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. It explains all four parameters with provenance: api_key 'allocated to your application', token and wallet_fk from '/access/login', and wallet_card_id from '/wallet/card_list'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 the tool's function: 'Removes a tokenised Visa/Mastercard(s) associated with this wallet.' It uses a specific verb (removes) and identifies the resource, distinguishing it from siblings like wallet_card_list or wallet_visa_mastercard_card_list.

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 stating what it does, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusion criteria. The confirmation note ('confirm (yes/no) before executing') provides some context but not a clear alternative comparison.

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