search_cards

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

No annotations are provided. The description only states 'Returns: Matching cards' without disclosing behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, sorting, case sensitivity, or whether it searches across all accessible cards. Significant gap for a search 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 short (3 sentences) and uses a clear Args/Returns structure. The 'Returns' line is somewhat redundant given the output schema, but not harmful. Could be slightly more concise by omitting 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 the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks context on scope (e.g., user's accessible cards), ordering, error handling, or fuzzy matching, which are relevant for a search tool. Adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the description provides necessary semantics: query is 'Search term' and limit is 'Maximum results to return (default 20).' This effectively compensates for the missing schema descriptions, though more detail (e.g., search behavior) would be helpful.

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 states 'Search for cards (saved questions) by name or description.' This clearly specifies the verb (search) and resource (cards), and distinguishes from siblings like `list_cards` (which likely returns all cards) and `get_card` (single card).

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 usage for finding cards by text but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like `list_cards` or `get_card`. No 'when not to use' or alternative suggestions.

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