dealdesk.render_card_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that rendering only applies in MCP Apps hosts (ChatGPT) and that it is a UI render rather than data, which is meaningful context. However, it omits what happens outside a host, whether any state is mutated, or any permission requirements, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The purpose and the routing cue to get_card are both presented immediately, and every sentence earns its place.

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 explained, and the description covers the core purpose and selection condition. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only minor gaps around host prerequisites and parameter details.

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 50%: projectId is documented in the schema, cardId is not. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., format or sourcing of cardId), so it does not compensate for the uncovered parameter. This sits at the adequate baseline.

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 and resource: it renders the DealDesk card-summary widget. It distinguishes itself from data siblings by naming get_card, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas. Only slightly held back from 5 by not clarifying the widget's scope beyond 'card-summary'.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it ('when the user should see the card UI') and contrasts it with the data tools ('Data tools like get_card return JSON only'). That is clear context and a named alternative, though it stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., non-host environments).

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