Реквизиты карты

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that the card number is masked by default, CVV is never shown by default, and `reveal=True` outputs full card data sufficient to make payments. This is a critical behavioral guarantee that also flags privacy consequences, exceeding the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint already present.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: first introduces the data, then default masking behavior, then the potential risk with `reveal=True` and a concrete example of what is NOT a valid request. The structure is front-loaded and reasonably compact with no 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be restated. The description covers the source of the required parameter, the default vs reveal behavior, privacy implications, and the exact user consent threshold. It is fully actionable for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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%, but the description compensates fully: `ucid` is sourced from list_cards(), and `reveal` is explained with a privacy/approval rule. This adds meaning beyond the plain schema, which only defines types and defaults.

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 identifies card requisites as the resource and lists what is provided (holder, expiration, number). It distinguishes this tool from account_requisites and transfer_requisites by explicitly mentioning card and the `ucid` from `list_cards()`, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets'.

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?

Provides strong guidance on when to use `reveal=True`, including the condition that the user must explicitly ask for full details and that they should be warned. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when to use another requisites tool, but the parameters and card context make the scope reasonably clear.

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