get_card

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

No annotations provided, so description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions fuzzy matching but does not disclose behavior on missing cards, multiple matches, or any side effects. Returns are described as 'complete details' but lacks specificity on structure.

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, no redundant information. Action and resource are front-loaded. Every part adds value without 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?

Given single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for a basic lookup tool. It could be improved by noting error handling or behavior for non-existent cards, but it is adequate.

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 covers 100% with one parameter 'name' described as 'exact or partial match'. Description adds 'supports fuzzy matching' which clarifies schema's 'partial match' and provides extra context beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get complete details for a specific Hearthstone card' and lists included fields (stats, text, keywords, type). Distinguishes from sibling 'search_cards' by specifying use when card name is known.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when you know the card name (or close to it) and need full information.' Mentions fuzzy matching, implying tolerance for partial names, and contrasts with search-based alternatives.

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