list_card_external_links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and world-interaction profile is fully covered. The description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond what annotations and the pagination-oriented schema already provide, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that is front-loaded and free of waste. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity borders on under-specification for an 8-parameter tool.

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 an 8-parameter tool with nested objects and only 38% schema coverage, the description is too thin. An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the absence of usage context and parameter meaning leaves real gaps.

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 38% across 8 parameters, with card_id, url, limit, detail, and offset undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase 'attached to the card' faintly implies a card identifier is required, but the description compensates for none of the coverage gap.

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 states a clear verb and resource: read external links attached to a card. It distinguishes this from siblings like list_attachments and list_card_tags by naming 'external links'. However, it offers no explicit sibling differentiation or scope statement (e.g., pagination, filtering), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_attachments. The agent must infer that this is the tool for external links on a card, but nothing routes it versus adjacent list_* tools.

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