zuuna_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' plus the explicit list of returned attributes makes the read-only behavior and output scope clear. It could explicitly state non-mutation or error behavior, but for a simple retrieval tool this is sufficient.

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 one efficient sentence followed by a short input note. It front-loads the purpose, uses an em-dash to list the value returned, and contains no filler or redundant explanation.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the input format, provides an example, and specifies the full scope of returned data. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool.

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 100%, and the schema already documents 'Card key (e.g. ZNA-2001) or card id.' The description repeats this with an example, adding slight clarification but no substantial new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource ('a card's full detail'), then enumerates the returned fields. It clearly differentiates this read tool from sibling mutation and movement 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 explains how to identify the card (key or id) and gives an example, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool as opposed to zuuna_create_card, zuuna_update_card, or zuuna_move_card; the usage is only implied by the verb and sibling names.

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