dealdesk.get_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does almost nothing with it. It does not state that this is a read-only lookup, what happens if the id is unknown, or any permission/project scoping requirement, despite projectId being constrained to the API key's project. Only the bare 'get' verb implies safe retrieval.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the missing usage and behavioral detail noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a simple two-param read that is the main saving grace, but with zero annotations and half the parameters undocumented, the definition leaves the agent guessing on project scoping and error behavior.

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 coverage is 50%: projectId is well documented in the schema, while cardId is undocumented anywhere except the description's 'by id'. The description confirms an id-keyed lookup but adds no format or source guidance (e.g. where card ids come from) beyond what the schema already conveys.

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?

Clear verb+resource+scope: 'Get one desk card by id' states a single-resource retrieval keyed by id. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_cards (plural/browse) and patch_card/create_card, though it never names those siblings explicitly. An agent can determine what the tool does without opening the schema.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. There is no mention of how this differs from get_company, get_quote, or list_cards, nor any prerequisite or context (e.g. 'use when you already have a card id'). A single narrow read tool is low-risk, but the description offers no routing help.

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