isw_fetch_cards_by_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states a read operation ('Fetch'), but omits details like authentication requirements, potential side effects, pagination, or response structure. The minimal description leaves critical behavioral gaps.

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 with no redundancies, making it concise. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points or sections) that could aid scannability. It earns its place by stating the core purpose efficiently.

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 has 2 parameters (including a nested object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the extra parameter does, what the response format is, or any constraints like how many cards can be fetched.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It implies the accountNumber is used ('linked to an account') but does not elaborate on the 'extra' parameter or the format of accountNumber. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 uses the verb 'Fetch' and resource 'cards linked to an account', clearly indicating what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tools like isw_fetch_cards_by_issuer (by issuer) and isw_fetch_single_card_by_pan (by PAN) by specifying 'by account'. However, it does not explicitly mention the required 'accountNumber' parameter, leaving some ambiguity.

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 isw_fetch_cards_by_issuer or isw_fetch_customer_card_details. There is no mention of prerequisites, context for use, or when to avoid it.

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