wallet_get_cards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is fully covered. The description adds useful behavior: it lists returned card fields, supports a card_id filter, and supports limit/offset pagination. However, it does not address authentication expectations, rate limits, or why [PRIVATE] is flagged, which would add further behavioral context.

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 concise sentences each carry distinct information: what the tool lists, what fields are returned, and how to filter/paginate. The [PRIVATE] marker adds a compact sensitivity cue without extra fluff. No wasted words.

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 read-only list tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the resource, return fields, optional filtering, and pagination. It could improve by explicitly saying that omitting card_id returns all cards (though the schema says this) and by elaborating on the [PRIVATE] implication, but nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it successfully.

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 100%, so the input schema already fully documents jwt, limit, offset, and card_id. The description restates the card_id filter and pagination behavior but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List credit/debit cards registered in Bit2Me,' making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It enumerates returned fields (card ID, brand, last 4 digits, expiration, alias) and distinguishes the card-list operation from sibling wallet tools by focusing on cards rather than pockets, networks, or movements.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool—when listing or retrieving registered Bit2Me cards—and explains optional filtering and pagination. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the domain-specific wording makes usage obvious enough.

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