cards_lore

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the response is a bare object with card_detail_id and text, that omitting the parameter yields an empty body, that the response has no BCX or attribution fields, that responses are cached for 24 hours, that provenance is reported, and that the tool returns the object unchanged without deriving attributes. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 concise and front-loaded, leading with the main purpose and then adding important behavioral details. Each sentence provides distinct information: endpoint, response shape, parameter requirement, caching, provenance, and non-derivation. It is not overly verbose and avoids repeating schema information. Slightly longer than necessary but efficient.

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 tool with a single integer parameter and no output schema, this description is exceptionally complete. It covers the response structure, the required parameter behavior, caching behavior, provenance reporting, and clarifies that no additional derived attributes are included. An agent has all the information needed to call this tool correctly and interpret the response.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It states that card_detail_id is required and that omitting it returns an empty body, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not explain what the id represents or how it relates to other card identifiers across the API. While the field name is self-explanatory, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's basic integer type.

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 function: it gets the lore object for a given card_detail_id via a specific endpoint. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on lore specifically, which is unique among the many list/sibling tools. The verb 'Get' and resource 'lore object' are specific and unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool (when you need a card's lore) but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. It mentions that it does not derive card attributes, which hints that other tools might be needed for that, but it does not name any sibling tool or provide explicit routing guidance. This is adequate but not explicit.

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