dealdesk.list_cards

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. It never states that this is a read-only operation, how results are ordered, whether pagination exists, or how the limit default of 25 interacts with result counts.

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 well-formed sentence with the resource and filters front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification for a 4-parameter tool.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain read-only semantics, filtering behavior, and result shape; it explains none of these. One parameter (stage) is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a real gap.

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 75% (q, limit, and projectId documented; stage is not), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a light restatement that stage and search filtering exist, without explaining accepted stage values or that projectId must match the credential's project.

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 (List) and resource (DealDesk desk cards), which cleanly separates it from dealdesk.get_card, create_card, and patch_card. It does not, however, distinguish itself from other list siblings such as list_cases or list_companies beyond the noun.

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?

'with optional stage/search filters' hints at capabilities but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative (e.g., use get_card for a single card). The agent must infer usage entirely.

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