get_created_cards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope ('you've created') and return shape ('array of card objects (id, title, image)'). However, there is a minor inconsistency: the description says 'image' while the schema mentions 'imageUrl', which could cause slight confusion. Overall, it is consistent with annotations and adds useful context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema. The description covers the core purpose and return type. It could mention pagination or an explicit note that no filtering is possible, but given the output schema exists and the tool is likely low-risk, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single optional 'fields' parameter, which is well described. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond mentioning the returned fields, but it does align with the schema's field names (except 'image' vs 'imageUrl'). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('digital cards you've created on Partiful'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling get_* tools. It states exactly what data is returned, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (when you need your created digital cards), but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it. Given the large sibling set of get_* tools, some explicit exclusion would be helpful, but the context is reasonably clear.

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