Check whether cards are suspended

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are positionally aligned with the input array and unknown card IDs yield null instead of an error, which tells the agent how to handle bad input. It stops short of any limits or bulk-failure behavior, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, and the most important fact (what comes back) is front-loaded. Nothing redundant with the title or annotations is restated.

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-only predicate check with no output schema, the description supplies the return type, ordering guarantee, and unknown-ID handling. There is nothing else an agent needs in order to call this correctly.

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 100% and the schema field already warns 'card IDs, not note IDs; get them from find_cards or notes_info.' The description adds only the input-to-output positional mapping ('same order as input'), which is helpful but thin; the baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 and resource ('Returns an array of booleans ... telling whether each card is suspended') and immediately pins down the return semantics (order-preserving, null for unknown IDs). It implicitly separates this read-only check from the mutating siblings suspend/unsuspend, so an agent can pick correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: query suspension state for a batch of card IDs. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of when to prefer a per-card check, and no stated batch-size or rate considerations. Adequate for a trivial query but nothing more.

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