Create show/hide card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the primary interactive behavior (collapsible sections and show-all/hide-all buttons) but omits additional behaviors like tutorTerms hover interactions and contextActions right-click menu. There is no contradiction, but the disclosure is minimal.

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 long, front-loaded with the core function, and includes practical use cases without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does and when to use it.

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?

Despite having an output schema and descriptions for tutorTerms/contextActions, the sections parameter is complex and undocumented in both the description and schema. The description fails to explain how to structure sections or the meaning of html/text/open. For a tool with nested objects and interactive features, this is insufficient for confident invocation.

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 descriptions cover only tutorTerms and contextActions (40% coverage). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the term 'sections', leaving title, subtitle, and the structure of sections (html/text/open) unexplained. Since schema coverage is low and the description does not compensate, this dimension is weak.

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 tool renders a card with collapsible show/hide sections and show-all/hide-all buttons. It also provides example use cases, making the purpose specific and distinct from sibling card tools.

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 gives explicit use cases ('Good for step-by-step guides, FAQs, spoilers, and long reference material'), which clarifies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it misses the full 'when-not/alternatives' guidance.

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