query_cards

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state a key behavior: informational and hardening cards are hidden by default, which tells the agent about default filtering. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, any permission requirements, rate limits, or failure modes. The non-mutating nature of a 'query' is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 extremely compact at two short sentences, leading with the primary purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could have used the available space to clarify parameters or usage since it is so brief.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format, possible results, pagination, error cases, or what constitutes 'hunter-relevant'. The single behavioral note about default hiding is helpful but does not make the tool safely callable by an agent that needs to know what to expect or how to interpret the output.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not explain what engagement_id is or what include_noise does beyond default false. The text 'Informational and hardening are hidden by default' indirectly suggests include_noise might control showing those, but it never explicitly links the parameter to that behavior. The agent is left guessing about the meaning and usage of both parameters.

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 the tool returns 'hunter-relevant cards', which is a clear verb (return/query) and resource (cards). It does not formally distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the action-oriented siblings (execute_proof, draft_waves, etc.) are clearly different, so the purpose is recognizable without ambiguity.

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 implies this is a query tool for retrieving cards, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. The note 'Informational and hardening are hidden by default' hints at the include_noise parameter, but it does not explicitly say 'use include_noise when you need these types of cards' or provide any exclusions relative to other tools.

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