get_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns an array of card objects, lists the specific fields included, and mentions the mutual exclusivity of parameters. However, it lacks details on error handling, pagination, or rate limits, which are relevant for a retrieval tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter rules and return details, then usage context. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second specifies parameter logic, the third details the return structure, and the fourth explains 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by listing the return fields and usage context. However, it could improve by mentioning potential limitations (e.g., query performance for large result sets) or authentication needs, though it's largely complete for a read operation.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the two parameters (cardId and query). The description adds minimal value by restating the mutual exclusivity and general purpose, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema includes.

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 verb 'retrieve' and resource 'detailed card/note information', specifying it returns an array of card objects with enumerated fields. It distinguishes from siblings like get_due_cards and get_new_cards by not limiting to specific card states, and from update_card by being read-only.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('to find card/note IDs for update operations or to inspect card details') and provides clear usage rules: 'Provide EITHER cardId OR query (not both)'. This distinguishes it from siblings by indicating it's for retrieval before updates or detailed inspection.

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