Projection account card

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already known. The description adds minimal context: it requires projectionstart and defaults to JSON. However, it does not explain what the projection card contains or any side behaviors, but given annotation coverage, this is acceptable baseline.

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 short, front-loaded sentences: the first states the purpose, the second adds a key requirement and default. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

This is a 9-parameter tool with no output schema and rich sibling context. The description is too brief to explain what a 'projection card' represents, how it relates to other card/projection tools, or what the response looks like. The complete parameter documentation in the schema only partially compensates for the lack of behavioral and return context.

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 all 9 parameters have descriptions. The tool description only reiterates the required parameter (projectionstart) and the default format (JSON), both already present in the schema. No additional semantic value is provided beyond the schema.

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 action: 'Return the projection card for an account.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and resource. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like banana_account_card or banana_projection, the name and title make the 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as banana_projection or banana_account_card. The only usage hint is 'Requires projectionstart,' which is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline.

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