list_cards_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: pagination mechanism ('explicit pagination') and use case ('iterating through large collections'). However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if parameters are invalid. The description adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 highly concise and well-structured with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. No wasted words or redundancy.

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's moderate complexity (pagination tool with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and usage but lacks details on return values, error cases, or performance characteristics. It meets basic needs but leaves gaps that could hinder effective tool selection.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (deckId, bookmark, pageSize) with their types and descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining pagination flow or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Fetch a single page of cards with explicit pagination.' It specifies the verb (fetch), resource (cards), and scope (single page with pagination). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cards' or 'search_cards', which might offer different retrieval mechanisms.

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 context on when to use this tool: 'Use for iterating through large collections.' This implies it's suitable for paginated access to large datasets. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is helpful for understanding its intended application.

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