jump_to_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It clearly states the tool returns a redirect URL, which implies a read-only navigation action. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or behavior in error cases, though the operation appears straightforward.

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 that front-loads the primary action ('Get a redirect URL') and adds a concise qualifier ('matched by integration details'). There is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only provides a high-level purpose and does not explain return format, parameter interactions, prerequisites, or edge cases. Given the moderate complexity, this is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds only the high-level context that parameters are 'integration details' used for matching, but does not explain the relationship or distinction between integration_id and integration_identifier, leaving the schema descriptions to do 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'redirect URL' with the purpose of jumping to an asset/record matched by integration details. It is specific about the outcome but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tool 'jump_to_company'.

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 the tool is used when you have integration details and need a redirect URL, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'jump_to_company' or when not to use it.

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