Get Acceptance Criteria

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the alias list, the first-match-wins ordering, case-insensitivity, and the {found: true|false} union plus the need to read 'reason'. It omits any note on permissions or whether an ambiguous multi-match is flagged.

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 tightly packed sentences with the core action front-loaded and the matching/return semantics immediately following. The alias enumeration is long but each token is functional, not padding.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately explains the return shape and the 'reason' field on misses. With two fully documented parameters and a read-only lookup, little else is needed, though it never states that this is a non-mutating search operation.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the 'recommended to avoid ambiguity' note for cardId. The description adds the card-vs-board scoping concept but no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get a card's (or board's) acceptance criteria') and defines the exact matching semantics, making the tool's narrow specialty evident. It stops short of naming the obvious sibling (get_checklist_by_name) as the generic alternative, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 context is implied by the alias-matching rules and the note to read 'reason' when not found, which tells the agent what to expect. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus get_checklist_by_name or get_checklist_items, nor any statement of prerequisites or exclusion cases.

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