daily_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses determinism ('same all day') and marks the tool as internal, but says nothing about permissions, side effects, failure modes, or what the card payload looks like. For a zero-annotation tool this is thin.

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?

A single short sentence with the category tag front-loaded and the defining property (deterministic, stable all day) placed early. It is efficient and has no padding, though the compressed jargon trades clarity for brevity.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is the only source of behavioral information and it is far too sparse. It should at minimum explain the seed parameter, the return shape, and whether authentication or an identity is required.

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?

The single 'seed' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is not even required, yet the description never mentions it. This is especially confusing given the stated determinism: an agent cannot tell whether seed changes the daily card or is ignored. No meaning is added beyond the bare 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 identifies the resource (the card of the day) and asserts a key property (deterministic, same all day), which does separate it from siblings like card_get and cards_browse. However, the verb is only implied by the '[FIND]' tag and the phrase 'from the keeping' is opaque jargon that an agent cannot resolve. Purpose is inferable but not stated cleanly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no alternatives named, despite many plausible siblings (card_get, cards_browse, deck_open, card_connections). The '(same all day)' clause hints that repeated calls are pointless, but the agent is left to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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