pk_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the tool 'outputs a tweet-ready card' and lists compared metrics, implying no account mutation, but it never explicitly says it is non-destructive, requires no authentication, or what side effects (if any) exist.

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?

Four concise sentences front-load the primary action, followed by metrics, output, and intended use. No filler or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the main purpose, metrics, output, and use case. However, it omits parameter sourcing and any side-effect clarification, leaving an agent to infer prerequisites from sibling tools.

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 description needed to document account_a and account_b. It only restates that there are 'two accounts,' which adds little beyond the property names and titles; it does not explain identifier format, where to obtain valid account IDs, or the meaning of the defaults.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Generate a head-to-head PK comparison card between two accounts.' It then lists the exact metrics compared and the output type, making the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishable from sibling stats/leaderboard 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 line 'Great for rivalry and sharing' gives a soft context cue for when the card is appropriate, but it does not explain when to choose this over pk_battle, leaderboard_card, or stats_card, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing initialized accounts.

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