Find cards

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive semantics, so the bar is lower, but the description adds real behavior: the exact return shape (ids/total/truncated), the default limit of 100, and what truncation means. It does not state whether queries are case-sensitive or how pagination beyond the limit works, keeping it short of a 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?

Three tight sentences, zero redundancy: identity and return type first, response shape second, routing advice last. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully specifies the response envelope, and for a two-parameter read-only search tool nothing essential is missing. The sibling routing covers the main risk of misuse.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3, but the description adds intent beyond the schema by explaining that the default limit is 100 and why increasing it is usually the wrong fix. This gives `limit` operational meaning (truncation driver) rather than just a number bound.

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 ("Searches cards with Anki search syntax") and explicitly scopes the return to CARD IDs, immediately distinguishing it from find_notes which returns note IDs. An agent can pick between the two without inspecting schemas.

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?

Names two alternatives with conditions: use find_notes when you need note IDs, and pass results to cards_info for details. It also gives a strategic rule — narrow the query rather than raise the limit — which tells the agent how to behave when results are truncated.

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