Карточка

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does list example fields returned (описание, участники, теги, сроки), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permissions, whether archived cards are returned, error behavior for bad IDs, or payload size.

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, front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the field enumeration as a compact parenthetical. Nothing extraneous.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description usefully previews the returned payload. Sufficient to call correctly; only missing caveats around access and archived-state 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?

Only one parameter, fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage with 'ID карточки'. The description's 'по ID' merely restates the schema, adding no format or sourcing detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Возвращает карточку по ID') and clarifies the retrieval scope ('со всеми полями'). The 'by ID' framing implicitly separates it from kaiten_search_cards and the list_* siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the direct-lookup tool when a card ID is already known. There is no explicit 'use this instead of search_cards when...' guidance or preconditions about archived/deleted cards.

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