get_card_performance

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses premium-gating and API key requirement, but does not explicitly state read-only nature or any side effects. The verb 'Get' implies read, but more clarity on safety would improve.

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 concise: one sentence and two short phrases, front-loaded with the main action. Every word earns its place with no waste.

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 covers the essential purpose, parameters, and access constraints. It does not describe the output format, but for a simple listing tool, it is fairly 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 description compensates by explaining the 'type' parameter (best/worst) and default limit of 10. It adds meaning beyond the schema, though it could be more explicit about the exact meaning of best vs worst.

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 it retrieves best- or worst-performing cards by P&L, with default behavior and access constraints. It distinguishes from siblings like get_card or get_card_prices.

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 tells when to use the tool (to get performance rankings) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. The context from sibling tools helps, but the description itself lacks explicit exclusions.

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