recommend_smart_cards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior and side effects. It only says 'Find relevant,' which implies a read-only retrieval and relevance ranking, but it does not state whether anything is modified, what a SMART card contains, or what happens when no matches are found.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant clauses. It clearly conveys the tool's purpose and is easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple three-parameter retrieval tool with a fully documented schema and no nested objects, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It falls short of 5 because the return value is described only as 'cards' and no behavioral caveats or edge cases are mentioned.

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%, and the schema already documents condition, maxCards, and cardTypes with examples. The description repeats the 'condition or health goal' idea without adding meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Find') and resource ('SMART cards'), and clarifies that these are medical and behavioral interventions. It is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as generate_care_plan or calculate_health_score, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for a specific condition or health goal' implies when the tool should be used. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools, so usage guidance is largely implied rather than explicit.

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