get_single_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the lookup behavior (by ID or slot ID) and the mutual exclusivity of parameters, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention error handling (e.g., what happens if the card isn't found), response format, or any rate limits, leaving gaps in 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place. It's efficient with zero waste, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (simple lookup with 2 parameters) and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and parameter usage well, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or any side effects, which could hinder the agent's ability to handle edge cases effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and their types. The description adds value by clarifying the 'either/or' relationship and specifying that 'id' is an integer and 'slotId' is a string, but this is largely redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get details') and resource ('single card'), specifies the lookup methods ('by ID (integer) or slot ID (string)'), and distinguishes this from siblings like 'get_chains' or 'query_api_cards' which handle different resources. It's 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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Get details of a single card') and provides clear exclusion rules ('Provide either id OR slotId, not both'). This helps the agent choose between parameters and avoid alternatives like 'get_multiple_doc_pages' for bulk operations.

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