List Cards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral information. It mentions 'Filters combine with AND' which is useful, but doesn't address pagination behavior (despite limit/offset parameters), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when no filters are applied. For a tool with 19 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 - just two short sentences. While this could be seen as efficient, it borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place, but more words might be needed for adequate documentation.

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 19 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and moderate schema coverage (63%), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'cards' represent in this system, what the return format looks like, or provide essential context for proper usage. The complexity demands more comprehensive documentation.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the schema. Schema description coverage is 63%, and the description only clarifies that 'Filters combine with AND' - which helps understand how multiple parameters interact but doesn't explain individual parameters. With 19 parameters, the description should do more to compensate for the 37% coverage gap, but it doesn't.

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 'List cards. Filters combine with AND.' is tautological - it restates the name/title without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'cards' are in this context or distinguish this from other list operations like 'list_hand' or 'list_activity' among the sibling tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'list_hand', 'get_card', and 'list_activity', there's no indication of when this general listing tool is appropriate versus more specific retrieval operations.

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