Look Up Integration Cards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds conceptual context about cards carrying synced fields but lacks specifics like pagination, error behavior, or prerequisites. 'Operation class: Read' is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with a brief explanation and one concrete use case. 'Operation class: Read' is redundant given the annotations, but the description is otherwise concise and well-structured for its length.

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 description explains both what the tool returns (integration cards with synced fields) and why they matter. With no output schema, this is sufficient for a read-only list tool, though it doesn't cover edge cases or detailed response structure.

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 fully documents parameters. The description does not elaborate on parameters, but also doesn't need to; it provides an example slug in the schema. Baseline 3 applies because schema handles the semantic load.

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 tool lists integration cards for a given external record, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('integration cards'). It explains what cards are, distinguishing this from other tools in the sibling list that deal with assets, companies, or other Hudu entities.

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?

Provides a concrete use case: 'Use this to answer "what does Hudu know about this device from our RMM?" without opening the RMM itself.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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