get_card_by_id

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 behavioral disclosure. 'Get' weakly signals a read-only lookup, but the description says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown ID, the shape of the returned card, or any API constraints, which is a meaningful gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, and the resource plus its identifying key are both front-loaded. Nothing needs to be trimmed or reordered.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It is missing sibling routing (search_card_by_name/search_cards vs. by-ID lookup) and any not-found behavior, which an agent would need to call it confidently.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only calls the field 'Card Id', so the description does add real value by specifying it must be a Scryfall ID. However, it gives no format details (UUID vs. other form) or validation expectations, so compensation for the coverage gap is only partial.

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 specific verb (Get) and resource (a specific Magic: The Gathering card) plus the lookup key (Scryfall ID). This is clearly distinguishable in spirit from the search siblings, but the description never names them, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 'by its Scryfall ID' implies the precondition for use (you must already have an ID), which hints at when this should be chosen over search_card_by_name or search_cards. However, no alternative is named and no explicit when-not guidance is given, leaving usage only implied.

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