Deal Rush cards

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

Annotations only mark this as non-read-only and open-world; the description supplies the genuinely non-obvious consequences — cards are counted against the daily reel allowance the moment they are in hand, and stay counted until kept or skipped. That consumption-then-resolution lifecycle is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences with zero padding: purpose first, then the cost/allowance warning, then the action guidance. The most decision-relevant fact (cards count against quota) is front-loaded right after the purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers what an agent needs: what it returns conceptually (cards), the quota side effect, the required follow-up tool, and the user-consent expectation. Nothing material is missing for a 3-optional-parameter tool.

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 mode, cursor, and workspaceId are already documented inline (including the fresh/repeat enum semantics and the 'start at 0' cursor hint). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond a vague 'large batch' phrasing, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Deal the next cards from the Rush deck') and immediately clarifies what kind of operation it is: 'NOT a plain read'. It also names the companion tool resolve_rush_item, which separates it from look-alikes such as get_rush_prefs.

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?

Gives explicit operating guidance: ask the user before dealing a large batch, and resolve what you deal. It routes the agent to resolve_rush_item for the follow-up step, so both when-to-use and the downstream obligation are stated rather than inferred.

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