preview_card_template

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

Given the annotation readOnlyHint=true, the description adds value by stating that it is a preview operation, implying no side effects. It also mentions text substitution and return of template structure, which goes beyond the annotation's bare read-only hint. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with no filler, front-loading the core purpose and a clear use case. The second sentence specifies the output, which is useful but concise. Every word earns its place.

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 preview tool with a rich schema and a simple output description, the definition is largely complete. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by mentioning it returns 'template structure including page layouts'. Could specify that it returns rendered images or whether it is synchronous, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds context that the tool substitutes placeholders, but it doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the meaning for parameters.

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 verb, resource, and purpose: render a preview with text substitution. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_card_project or validate_card_project by focusing on previewing, and the mention of returning template structure with page layouts adds specificity.

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 implies when to use it—to see how a design looks with specific names and date. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the sibling names are clearly about other operations (create, validate, swap), so the context is clear without explicit exclusions.

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