get_card_suite

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read operation, so the description does not need to restate that. The description adds context about what data is returned (paper types, sizes, price range), which is useful, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, auth requirements, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the action and resource, defines the key term 'suite' in a parenthetical, and lists the relevant return categories without any filler or repetition.

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 simple single-parameter, read-only tool with complete schema coverage, the description provides enough information for correct invocation. It identifies the input source, clarifies the object type, and describes the output contents. No additional context is necessary for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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%, and the schema already explains suite_uuid with examples of where to obtain it. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it does not need to compensate. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get details for an invitation design suite', and clarifies what a suite is ('family of matching invitation + RSVP + details cards'). It also names the data areas returned (paper types, sizes, price range), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_card_catalog and get_card_project.

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 schema parameter description says the suite_uuid comes from search_card_catalog or list_favorite_card_suites, which strongly implies this tool is used after those lookup tools and takes a UUID as input. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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