describe

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add real value by naming what the response contains (input types, safety, verification). It still omits whether the call is side-effect free, what happens for an unknown tool name, and any auth/permission requirement — gaps that matter when nothing else documents behavior.

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and followed by the most useful detail. No filler or repetition. The only minor cost is the undefined jargon term 'card', which the colon list partly repairs.

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?

The tool is low-complexity (one lookup) but has no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source for return shape and behavior. It sketches the return contents, which is the minimum needed, yet leaves the input format and error behavior unspecified.

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 0% and the single required parameter 'tool' is undocumented in both schema and description. 'A tool's card' weakly implies the argument is a tool identifier, but the accepted form (name, id, slug) is never stated, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Show') and resource (a tool's card), then enumerates the card's contents (inputs with types, safety, verification), which makes the artifact concrete rather than tautological. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'discover', which likely also surfaces tool information, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. With siblings like 'discover' and 'readiness' in the same namespace, an agent gets no cue about which lookup to pick. Usage must be entirely inferred from the tool name.

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