List cards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating the returned control dimensions, but it does not disclose scope (all cards vs. filtered), ordering, or pagination behavior for a tool annotated openWorldHint.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and then enumerates return content. It is long but every clause names a distinct field, so little is wasted; a bulleted split of the flag list would read slightly better.

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 a zero-param read with no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting by naming the returned fields, which is exactly what's needed. Minor gap: no statement of scope (all cards) or ordering, and no output schema means the agent learns return shape only from prose.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly spends no words on inputs and instead documents the returned shape, which is the right allocation for a no-arg tool.

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 (Lists) and resource (the account holder's cards) and enumerates exactly what is returned (controls, flags, last 4, activation state). It is distinguishable from the many sibling list_* tools because it names the card-specific control domain.

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 implies when to use it (to inspect card controls and state) but gives no explicit when-not or alternative routing. No sibling is named even though get_card_transaction_details and list_accounts are plausible adjacents.

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