yoto_get_card

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

The 'No write operation' phrasing repeats what the readOnlyHint annotation already establishes, adding little new behavioral information. It does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or open-world return semantics, though the annotations reduce the burden here.

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 extremely compact: a concrete first sentence states the core operation immediately, and the second sentence reinforces the read-only nature. There is no filler or unnecessary detail.

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 simple single-parameter, read-only tool with sibling guidance and annotations, this is largely complete. It tells the agent what to do and confirms no mutation, but it leaves minor gaps such as the meaning of 'MYO' and expected authentication context.

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 0%, so the description carry must some compensating meaning. 'By ID' maps directly to the cardId parameter, but it does not explain where the ID comes from or what format constraints apply beyond the schema's own maxLength and minLength.

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: 'Read one MYO card by ID.' It clearly distinguishes this single-card retrieval operation from siblings like yoto_list_cards and the authentication tools, so an agent can identify its purpose instantly.

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?

It makes clear the tool is for fetching exactly one card using its ID. It does not explicitly name yoto_list_cards as the alternative when all cards are needed, so while the intended usage context is clear, explicit when-not guidance is absent.

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