Find card ids

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful behavior: verified cards are ordered first, unverified cards are flagged rather than removed. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent useful expectations about result ordering and filtering policy.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core function and purpose; the second adds a concise but important behavioral rule. Every word earns its place.

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 simple 3-parameter search tool, the description covers purpose, search scope, result ordering, and the intended use of the output ids. It doesn't describe exact return shape, but 'get the ids' sufficiently conveys the output for this context, especially given the minimal parameter schema and no nested objects.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that searching can be done by card or issuer name and that returned ids are intended for best_card, which adds meaning to query/issuer. However, it does not explain the limit parameter or fully disambiguate which parameter handles card vs issuer names, leaving a partial gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('RightCard's catalog'), and the downstream purpose ('to get the ids to pass into best_card'). This makes the tool's role obvious and distinguishes it from best_card, which consumes those ids.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (before best_card, to resolve card/issuer names to ids), and it gives concrete search criteria. It doesn't explicitly contrast sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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