cards_info

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

No annotations exist, so description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions only the returned fields but not side effects, permission requirements, error handling (e.g., invalid IDs), or that it is a read-only operation. This is a significant gap.

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 sentence of 16 words, front-loading the purpose and key details. No extraneous content. Could be slightly improved by integrating usage notes without much length increase, but it is notably concise.

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 (context signal), full return value details are not required, but the description omits critical behavioral context such as error handling for missing IDs, performance considerations, or how multiple IDs are processed. Incomplete for a tool with no annotations.

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 coverage is 0% and description does not elaborate on the single parameter `card_ids`. Details like max array size, handling of duplicates, or behavior on invalid IDs are absent, providing minimal added value beyond the parameter name.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves detailed information for specific card IDs and lists the fields returned. The verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed info for specific card IDs' are precise, and it distinguishes from siblings like `card_reviews` which focus on review history.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `find_cards`, `notes_info`, or `card_reviews`. Missing context about prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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