search-cards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds important behavioral details: it reads all cards and filters locally, each 100 cards costs one API call, stops after maxPages, and reports if cut short. This fully discloses the operational characteristics beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences, each delivering essential information: what the tool does, its limitation, scoping, and pagination cost. No wasted words; front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (search with pagination, cost, and cut-off), the description covers the main aspects: API limitation, scoping, pagination, and reporting cutoff. It lacks explicit mention of what the result contains (e.g., card IDs, full objects), but the absence of an output schema and the mention of 'reports whether it was cut short' partially compensates.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the scoping requirement (widgetCommonId or collectionId) and the meaning of maxPages in terms of cost and cutoff. This contextual information helps the agent use parameters correctly.

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 clearly states the tool finds Favro cards by text in name or description, distinguishing it from list-cards (which lists without filtering) and get-card (single card). It also explains the limitation of the Favro API, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description tells when to use (to search cards by text) and how to scope it (with widgetCommonId or collectionId). It explains the cost per page and pagination behavior. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, it implies that list-cards is for unfiltered listing. Could be more precise about mutual exclusivity of parameters.

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