stampcard_catalogue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it usefully discloses that authentication is required, which is real added value. It says nothing about read-only vs. mutating nature, result size, pagination, or how the 'full' flag changes the response, leaving significant behavioral gaps for an unannotated tool.

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, front-loaded with the scope statement and followed by the auth requirement. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme brevity means an important flag is left unexplained rather than trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the login prerequisite is covered. The unresolved meaning of the 'full' parameter is a real omission for a tool whose only knob controls response shape.

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 parameter 'full' (boolean, default false) is never mentioned in the description. The agent must guess whether it means full details, full catalogue including expired cards, or something else entirely.

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?

Names a specific resource (stampcards) and states its scope as the whole catalogue rather than the caller's own set. The parenthetical '(not just yours)' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'stampcards' tool without naming it outright, which keeps it just 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?

The 'not just yours' contrast implies when to prefer this over the personal stampcards tool, and 'Requires login' flags a prerequisite. However, no alternative is named explicitly and there are no exclusion conditions or guidance on when the broader catalogue is actually needed.

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