get_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adequately states the read-only nature of the operation and adds a specific concurrency constraint, which goes beyond what is visible from the schema. A little more detail on behavior, such as outcome if note_id is invalid, would be helpful but is not critical.

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 short sentences, each carrying important information: what the tool does, that it is read-only, and a critical concurrency limitation. There is no 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 tool with an output schema present, the description plus parameter schema provide everything an agent needs to select and call it correctly. It explains the core action, side-effect safety, a concurrency restriction, and where to get the required identifier.

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 covers the sole parameter note_id with a clear description of where the ID comes from (list_deck_cards or search_cards), so the description need not repeat it. The description itself adds no new parameter semantic precision beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get one card's full content') and clearly distinguishes this from list/search tools by emphasizing it returns a single card's full content. The 'Read-only' qualifier further disambiguates from mutating siblings like add_card and edit_card.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need the full content of a single card, and it explicitly warns against calling it in parallel with other tools. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or conditions for switching to sibling tools, but the schema's parameter description points to list_deck_cards or search_cards as prior sources for note_id.

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