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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the login dependency, which is valuable behavioral context. It does not describe the response format or side effects, but with the annotation covering read-only behavior, this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the critical login requirement, and contains zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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 prerequisite and the core action. Given no output schema, it might benefit from clarifying what is returned (e.g., a list of card identifiers), but for a simple select tool with full schema coverage, the missing details are minor and inferable.

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 each parameter already has a thorough description. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters (e.g., how they influence the selection). Baseline of 3 is appropriate because 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 states a specific verb ('Select') and a clear resource ('KB Biz Card cards available to the current session'), and implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like kb_biz_card__common__departments__select by naming a different resource. The purpose is 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 clearly states a prerequisite ('REQUIRES prior kb_biz_card__session__login call with same account_link_id') but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear, but there are no exclusions or comparison with sibling select tools.

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