Vis Tua-kort

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior — that this renders an interactive MCP App surface (M/L buttons, 'Bygget av', 'Synlig for', 'Åpne i …') and degrades to plain text in clients without card support. It does not state ordering/pagination details for the id-mode or any latency/limit behavior beyond the schema's limit field.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the two modes, then the routing rule and the fallback — a logical order with almost no filler. It is dense (three long sentences) but every clause carries distinct information; only the enumeration of UI chips is slightly listy.

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 read-only renderer with no output schema, the description fully explains what the caller will observe in both modes and what happens when the host cannot render cards. With annotations covering safety and the schema covering all seven parameters, nothing material is left unstated.

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 100%, so the per-field descriptions already carry the baseline. The description goes beyond them by explaining how `id` and `query` select entirely different result shapes (single atom card vs. newest-first hit list) and that the ingress level S is rendered first, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 and resource ('Vis et kort fra Tua inne i samtalen') and immediately decomposes into the two operating modes: `id` renders a single atom card with its UI affordances, `query` renders a ranked hit list. It also explicitly names the siblings it is not (tua_search/tua_get), so an agent can discriminate without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit selection rule: use this when the *user* wants to see an atom or hits, use tua_search/tua_get when the agent itself needs the text. It also covers the degraded-client case ('I klienter uten kort-visning får du det samme som tekst'), so the agent knows the call still works when card rendering is unavailable.

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