list_cards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one real behavioral fact beyond that: the deleted listing is scoped to cards that are restorable, not all deleted cards. It says nothing about result volume, ordering, or pagination for what could be a large list.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the default behavior (active cards) before the alternate mode. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

The tool is simple: one optional boolean and an output schema that carries the return shape. For that complexity the description covers the essential behavioral fork. A brief note on ordering or result size would make it fully complete, but an agent can call it correctly as written.

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 single 'deleted' boolean is documented nowhere in structured data. The description compensates by explaining the binary switch between active and deleted/restorable cards, which is exactly the meaning an agent needs. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether unset/false are equivalent, which the schema default already implies.

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 ("List ... cards") along with the two result modes: active cards by default, or deleted cards available to restore. An agent can tell this is the enumeration tool rather than a getter like get_card. It stops short of naming a sibling to distinguish itself from, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase "deleted cards available to restore" hints that the deleted mode exists for restoration workflows, which lets an agent infer when to set the flag. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of exclusions (e.g., use get_card for a single known card), and no prerequisites.

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