get_card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral details beyond 'Get details', which is consistent but not enriching. It does not contradict annotations.

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 a single sentence, very concise. It efficiently conveys the purpose without waste. However, it could be slightly more structured to include key details like what 'details' entails, but for a simple tool it is acceptable.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required param, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete. It states the action and target but does not elaborate on the response structure or additional context. The lack of output schema increases the need for more description, but the annotation flags help.

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?

With only one parameter (card_id) and 100% schema description coverage ('Card ID'), the description adds no additional meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already covers the parameter adequately.

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 'Get details of a specific question/card', which is a clear verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_cards' (which lists many) and 'execute_card' (which runs a card), making the tool's purpose 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 implies usage when needing details of a specific card, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for listing all cards) or point to alternatives, though given the tool's simplicity, the context is adequate.

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