read_card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing exactly what will be returned, including plain-text description and counts.

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 core action is front-loaded: "Read any card ... by id." The remainder is a dense, purposeful enumeration of returned fields. It is long but every phrase adds information about scope or output.

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 carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so thoroughly: type, state, project, parent chain, teams, assignments, efforts, release, custom fields, tags, counts, and description. Combined with annotations covering read-only behavior, this is complete for a simple fetch-by-id 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?

The sole parameter is id, and the schema fully constrains it with integer/string type, pattern, and range. The description merely says "by id" and adds no new meaning beyond the schema, but because the parameter is a conventional card identifier, this is adequate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Read any card ... by id," and enumerates card types and the full set of returned fields. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like read_comments or read_relations, which target only specific aspects of a card.

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 implies the tool's use case: when you need full card details by ID. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as read_get, read_query, or read_comments, nor does it provide any exclusions.

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