get_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It describes the return dictionary with metadata, but does not disclose safety (e.g., read-only, idempotent) or potential side effects. While likely a safe read, the description lacks explicit transparency.

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, with a clear purpose statement followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the operation: it explains the purpose, the parameter, and the return fields (query, visualization settings, collection info). No gaps for a simple retrieval 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?

The only parameter, card_id, is described as 'The ID of the card to retrieve.' This adds meaning beyond the schema (which has no description, 0% coverage). The description is clear and accurate, though simple.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific card/question,' specifying the action (get) and resource (card). Among siblings like list_cards (which lists all cards), get_card is well-differentiated as targeting a specific card by ID.

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 implies usage when you need details of a single card, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like list_cards for browsing, or update_card for modifications. No exclusions or prerequisite context provided.

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