card_report_lost

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states irreversibility, SCA requirement, polling behavior, wait parameter, and fallback mechanism. It also mentions that setting sca_session_token skips polling. All key behaviors are disclosed.

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?

Two sentences; the first delivers the core purpose and key property (irreversible), the second covers all SCA details. Every sentence adds value, and no unnecessary words. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description explains the return behavior (polling or pending response) and provides a complete picture for an agent to handle the SCA flow. Given the complexity of SCA, the description is remarkably complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the SCA polling flow and how wait and sca_session_token interact. This enriches the schema descriptions (e.g., 'polls inline by default', 'fall back to pending response'), going beyond mere parameter names.

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 clearly states 'Report a physical card as lost (irreversible).' It uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('physical card'), and highlights the irreversible nature. This distinguishes it from siblings like card_report_stolen or card_discard.

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 description explains the SCA flow, including default polling behavior (wait=30s), fallback to pending response, and how to continue via sca_session_show + sca_session_token. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage.

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