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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful validation rule absent from the schema: at least one of title or body must be filled. It does not address permissions or side effects, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the constraint appended. The parenthetical clarification earns its place by resolving the inner-body ambiguity, though the density is slightly high.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers both parameters, the nested structure, and the validation rule, leaving only usage guidance as a gap.

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% and the parameters include a nested object, so the description carries real weight. It documents id as the program uuid, enumerates the nested body fields (kind, title, body), and importantly disambiguates the confusingly nested 'body' as the card text. This compensates well for the empty schema despite not covering the maxLength constraints.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Add an info/rule card to a program'. The name and description clearly convey the write operation and target entity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'add_template_info_card', leaving the program-vs-template distinction to the name alone.

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 'when to use' guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as 'add_template_info_card' or 'update_program_info_card'. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Add'.

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