preview_card_template

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

The description states that the tool returns the template structure including page layouts, adding behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not contradict any annotations and explains the output, though it could detail side effects (none expected).

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and usage. There is no fluff; every sentence contributes meaningfully.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description adequately explains the function and return type. It could mention error conditions or prerequisites, but the context is largely complete for a preview tool with readOnlyHint.

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?

All 6 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal value beyond summarizing their purpose as substitutions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameter semantics adequately.

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 the tool renders a preview of an invitation template with text substitutions, identifying the specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_card_project or preview_qrcode by focusing on preview with substitution.

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 says 'Use to see how a design would look' which provides a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives among siblings, leaving some ambiguity.

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