get_method_card

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

No behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the bare operation. There are no annotations, and the description does not mention any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or the nature of a 'full method card'.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no extraneous words. However, it could be restructured slightly to include additional context without losing conciseness.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description is not required to detail return values, but it omits any context about what a method card is or how it relates to other tools in the set.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the parameter 'method_id'. It only mentions it in passing ('by method_id') without defining what constitutes a valid ID or how to obtain one.

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 clearly states the action ('Return'), the resource ('full method card'), and the specific identifier ('by method_id'). This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_methods' which returns a list.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'search_methods' or 'get_source_reference'. It neither specifies prerequisites nor indicates when not to use it.

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