Get Card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, but nothing is said about permission requirements, error behavior (e.g. refusal when a cardId belongs to another board), pagination, or the shape of the returned data. The one piece of real behavioral context — raw vs trimmed replies — lives only in the schema, not the description.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary capability and followed by the disambiguating detail for cardNumber. Zero filler.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the selection-critical question (which identifier to use) and the number semantics. It is slightly thin on what 'detailed information' returns and does not mention the raw/includeMarkdown output-shaping flags, but nothing essential to invocation is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what cardNumber actually is: the number Trello displays and that appears in branch names like fix/53-chat-button, which helps an agent derive the value from user input.

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 ('Get detailed information about a card') and immediately qualifies the two lookup modes (by ID or by board number). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_cards_by_list_id, search_cards, and get_my_cards.

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 how to identify a card (ID vs number) and even decodes the branch-name convention, which is genuinely useful context. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as search_cards or get_cards_by_list_id, leaving usage implicit.

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