deck_limits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of what the returned limits contain, whether limits are per-deck defaults or user overrides, or whether they are static or change with study progress.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The second sentence is largely redundant with the schema's required array, costing a small amount of space for no new information.

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-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and no output schema to explain, this is close to sufficient. The only gap is that an agent cannot anticipate what a 'limit' object looks like before calling.

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%, so the single deck_id parameter is documented structurally. The description only repeats 'Required: deck_id' and adds no semantic detail such as how to obtain a deck ID or what an invalid one does; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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: 'Get daily study and review limits for a deck.' An agent can tell this apart from deck_list or deck_rename without opening the schema, though it never names the sibling it complements or contrasts with.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite conditions, and no reference to alternatives (e.g., when to fetch limits versus calling study). The only guidance is a restatement of the required parameter.

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