Create sequential list card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the core rendering behavior: nested ordered list with hierarchical numbering. But it does not mention notable interactive behaviors like tutorTerms underlining/hover or contextActions, which are only described in the schema.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the operation and output format, then adds a practical usage note. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. The core usage is covered, and the more complex optional parameters (`tutorTerms`, `contextActions`) are documented in the schema. Some gaps remain around optional parameters and sibling differentiation, but overall the definition is reasonably complete.

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 only 33%, and the tool description does not compensate. It hints at the nested `items` structure through 'nested ordered list card', but it does not explain `title`, `intro`, `subtitle`, or how nesting maps to `children`. Only `tutorTerms` and `contextActions` have schema-level descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Render') and a specific resource ('nested ordered list card') with distinctive behavior (hierarchical numbering). It is clear about what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling card tools by name.

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 phrase 'Good for procedures, outlines, and curricula' gives useful intended-use context. However, it does not explain when to choose this over alternatives such as create_markdown_card or create_table_card, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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