get_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It implies a safe read-only operation via the verb 'Retrieve', but does not describe output format, possible errors, rate limits, or how detailLevel/fields affect the response. This is a gap, but acceptable for a simple read tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 is a straightforward read operation with fully documented parameters and a clear purpose. The description, combined with the schema, gives the agent enough to select and invoke the tool correctly. The absence of an output schema is a minor gap, but the return value is the card details, which is inferable.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description's only param-related phrase, 'by ID', simply restates the cardId parameter. No additional semantic value is added beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Retrieve' and the resource 'specific card by ID', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cards_in_list (which retrieves multiple cards) and update_card (which modifies). This is specific and 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?

The description provides clear usage context: 'Use this when you need comprehensive details about a particular card.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool over list-oriented or mutation tools.

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