isw_fetch_single_card_by_pan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It mentions that sensitive fields are redacted, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling.

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 extremely concise with two direct sentences. No filler words; every part adds value. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 complexity of the tool (two parameters, many siblings, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It lacks information about what the response contains, error scenarios, or any constraints.

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 0%, and the description only implicitly references the required 'cardPan' parameter. The optional 'extra' parameter (an object) is completely unexplained, leaving ambiguity about its purpose.

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 action ('Fetch card details') and the resource ('by PAN'), which is specific and helps distinguish it from sibling tools like isw_fetch_cards_by_issuer and isw_fetch_cards_by_account. However, it could be more explicit about what 'card details' includes.

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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. Given many sibling card-fetching tools, the description should indicate scenarios where fetching by PAN is preferred over other criteria.

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