card_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the return shape (array of Card) and says nothing about result limits, pagination, ordering, or cost of open-world queries — useful but thin extra 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?

Three terse, front-loaded fragments with no filler; the core action comes first and the return type last. It is efficient, though the telegraphic style leaves gaps that a slightly longer sentence could have closed.

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 single optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but not complete: it doesn't explain the notes/cards distinction, what an empty query returns, or whether results are truncated — all relevant for an open-world search tool.

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 schema itself documents `query` as "Anki search syntax", so the description's contribution is limited to restating that the parameter is optional. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search notes in your collection") and names the return type ("array of Card"). However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tools `search`, `card_get`, or `card_duplicates`, and the notes-vs-cards wording is slightly inconsistent with the stated Card return type.

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?

"Optional: query" implies that an empty call lists everything, which is mild usage signal, but there is no statement of when to use this versus the sibling `search` tool or `card_get` for a direct lookup, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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