cards_get_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and exceeds it. It discloses the server's size-based refusal (1.17 MB upstream vs. 256 KB bound), that this refusal is this server's choice rather than an upstream rule, 24-hour caching, provenance reporting, and the absence of ownership fields. This is rich, honest behavioral context.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: the core action is front-loaded, then each subsequent sentence adds essential behavioral or data details. There is no fluff, repetition, or vague filler.

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?

Despite having no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough to call the tool correctly: it explains the required filter, enumerates the returned fields, describes caching and provenance behavior, and warns about the refusal condition. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to make an informed call.

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 input schema provides only `type` with `minLength: 1` and no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining that `type` is a real upstream filter, illustrating with concrete row counts (107 vs 1101), and making clear that providing `type` is necessary in practice to avoid the size-based refusal.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the card-definition rows returned by GET /cards/get_details.' It further distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it 'does not add per-instance ownership data,' clarifying what this tool is and is not among the many card-related endpoints.

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 gives clear operational guidance: provide `type` to make a filtered call because an unfiltered call is refused due to size. It also implies when not to use it by noting the route carries no BCX, donor, or account-attribution fields and adds no ownership data. However, it never names a specific alternative tool, so it stops short of 5.

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