get_action_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers almost nothing: no mention of error behavior for unknown IDs, how expansions affect the result, or return shape. 'Get' implies a read, but that is the extent of it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word earns its place and the resource and lookup key are stated immediately.

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-record lookup with 100% schema coverage and no output schema to explain, the description is adequate. It omits only minor context such as unknown-ID behavior, which is tolerable at this complexity level.

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%, so both card_id and the expansions default/enum handling are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 ('Get a specific TI4 action card by ID'), and the phrase 'specific...by ID' distinguishes single-item retrieval from the list_action_cards sibling. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so it stops short of clear sibling differentiation.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternative mentioned. The only signal is the implied 'use when you have an ID,' with no exclusions or direction to list_action_cards for discovery.

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