Get one card in full

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by explicitly listing what fields are returned, including 'most recent comments' indicating a limitation on comment history. It does not mention error behavior or rate limits, but for a read-only tool with annotations, this is sufficient.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and no redundant fluff. The second sentence provides a helpful pointer for sourcing card_id without being verbose.

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 parameter and no output schema. The description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields and explaining how to acquire the required parameter. It lacks explicit response structure or error details, but for a read-only tool with good annotations, it is adequately 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 100% and the parameter description already explains card_id sources. The description repeats this same information without adding new syntactic or semantic details. Per the rubric, high schema coverage means baseline 3, and no additional compensation is needed.

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 the tool gets a single card with a specific, valuable set of fields (description, labels, due date, members, checklist summaries, comments). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_cards (plural) and search_cards by emphasizing 'a single card' and the comprehensive read content.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need full details of one card. It also tells the user where to obtain card_id (get_cards, search_cards, URL). It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling names and purpose clarity make usage obvious.

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