get_card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: it lists what is included, states what is excluded (comments), and points at the continuation mechanism. It still omits anything about auth, rate limits, or how continuation state relates to the offset parameters.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and returned content, then the exclusion, then the invocation hint. No filler, though the final sentence is clipped enough to read as shorthand rather than instruction.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The gap is identification: with url and card_id both available and neither required, an agent gets no guidance on which to supply or whether one is preferred. That is the one thing an agent most needs here.

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 only 40%: url, detail, and card_id have no descriptions in the schema, while the two offset objects do. The description adds meaning by clarifying that `full` is the default detail level and by pointing at continuation, which maps to text_offsets/section_offsets. However, it never explains the url vs card_id choice, which is the main ambiguity given 5 params and 0 required.

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 clear verb+resource ('Read a card') and enumerates what is returned (description, identifiers, attachment metadata). It also draws one explicit boundary against a sibling by saying it does not fetch comments, which points at get_card_comments. It stops short of distinguishing itself from search_cards or the various list_*_cards tools.

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 only directive is 'Use full (default) and follow continuation,' which tells the agent how to paginate rather than when this tool is the right choice. The negative 'Does not fetch comments' implies get_card_comments as the alternative, but no condition or prerequisite is stated. Usage is implied, not spelled out.

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