list_cards

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly details the non-reconciliation behavior ('never reconciled with'), that it shows disagreement rather than picking a side, and that counts are always reported in full regardless of limit. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond a generic 'list' operation.

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 moderately concise: three sentences, with the core comparison behavior front-loaded before the filter note. The dash-embedded caveat and URL-heavy phrasing add some density, but every sentence contributes necessary context.

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 no output schema, the description supplies a conceptual view of returns: two labelled numbers plus row listing with optional filters. It does not detail the row structure or exact output format, but the combination of schema and description gives enough for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, with both axis and limit fully described in the input schema. The description adds only the phrase 'recent rows' and confirms both are optional filters, which is marginal added value 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 clearly identifies the tool's function: it reports two counts from two surfaces (the signed-card index's declared n_cards vs its actual row count, and the card store endpoint's self-reported count), and lists rows with optional axis/limit filters. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings by name, but the specific resources and comparison behavior 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?

It states when to use the tool: when you want to inspect these counts and see a disagreement, or list recent rows via optional filters. However, it offers no guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools like get_axis, verify_card, or board_totals, leaving the choice to the agent's inference.

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