Get card details

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive semantics, so the description is free to add real value: unknown IDs return empty objects, rendered HTML has CSS stripped, and output volume is large. The trailing 'and more' leaves the return surface slightly open-ended.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation, then the field list, then two short operational notes; nothing is wasted. The long enumeration plus 'and more' is slightly loose but justified by the absence of an output schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so the field enumeration serves as a partial return-value spec, and empty-result behavior is disclosed. Missing: whether 'fields' is a mapping, what HTML rendering implies, and anything on output size limits beyond a soft warning.

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 already says IDs are card IDs not note IDs, but the description adds a reasoned constraint (keep the list short because output is large) that shapes how the agent batches the single array parameter.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Returns details for the given card IDs') and enumerates the returned fields (note, deckName, modelName, fields, interval, due, queue, reps), which clearly separates it from sibling find_cards that produces IDs in the first place. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling boundary, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Offers one practical directive ('Keep the ID list short; the output is large') and the schema points to find_cards/notes_info for obtaining IDs, but the description itself never states when to call this instead of find_cards or cards_to_notes.

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