get_account_cards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses return contents (card type, status, cardholder information) but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only (though the verb 'Retrieve' implies a read).

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 waste; the purpose is front-loaded and the return contents are stated succinctly.

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 read operation with one parameter and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but lacks behavioral context that annotations would normally provide. It does specify return contents, which is helpful since there is no output schema, but it omits any usage guidance.

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 schema already documents the single accountId parameter with its UUID format. The description adds no parameter detail beyond this, but with full schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is 4.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (debit and credit cards for a Mercury account), plus the scope (associated with a specific account). Clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_account_statements or get_accounts, which deal with different resources.

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 usage by specifying a required accountId, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. No sibling differentiation or exclusions are mentioned.

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