get_card_access_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this wraps NBAPI GetCardAccessDetails and clarifies the identification restriction, but it does not describe the returned detail structure, error behavior, or how MAXRECORDS and OLDESTDTTM affect results.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the critical identification constraint is stated immediately after, making the definition easy to parse and act on.

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 parameter surface is well covered by the schema, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the returned access details actually contain or how optional record limiting works. For a straightforward getter this is adequate, but an agent must infer some response semantics.

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?

The schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the useful contextual point that PERSONID is not a valid lookup path, but it does not add new meaning for MAXRECORDS or OLDESTDTTM beyond their schema descriptions.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource pair: 'Returns card/credential access details for a given card.' It further distinguishes the tool from PERSONID-based access tools by explicitly stating that the card is identified by ENCODEDNUM + CARDFORMAT and that GetCardAccessDetails has no PERSONID parameter.

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 clearly establishes when to use this tool: when you have ENCODEDNUM and CARDFORMAT but not PERSONID for the lookup. It does not name an alternative tool for PERSONID-based access, so the routing guidance stops short of being fully explicit.

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