list_cards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it discloses scoping rules (client_id isolation), visibility boundaries, and return value structure (card_id, mode_code mappings, card_type values). It also explains business logic implications (refill paths). Could explicitly note the read-only nature.

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?

Four well-structured sentences: purpose/scoping, visibility constraint, return values, and operational tip. Every sentence adds distinct value. Front-loaded with the core action, no redundant fluff.

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?

Compensates effectively for the missing output schema by documenting return fields (card_id, mode_code meanings, card_type values, etc.) and their business logic. Given the 100% input schema coverage and moderate complexity, the description is complete, though rate limits or pagination totals could enhance it further.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both pagination parameters (page, page_size), establishing a baseline of 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed given the schema's completeness and the description's focus on return values and behavioral context.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List virtual cards'), clearly defines the scope ('created by this agent', 'scoped to the server's client_id'), and distinguishes from sibling retrieval tools like get_card_details by emphasizing the list nature and visibility constraints.

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?

Provides actionable usage guidance through the tip about checking mode_code to determine refill paths (Mode A vs Mode B). The visibility constraint note ('Cards created by other agents...are not visible') clarifies expected results. Lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools like get_card_details.

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