get_card

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, and mentions 'full JSON' which clarifies the return payload. However, it does not disclose error behavior, permissions, or potential side effects, leaving notable gaps for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 a single, tightly-worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and scope immediately, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place.

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 fetch tool, the description is adequate but not complete. It indicates the return is 'full JSON' but does not specify the structure of that JSON, error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID doesn't exist), or any caveats. Given no output schema, the agent has to infer the response structure from vague wording.

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% (card_id is described as 'Card ID to retrieve'). The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema—the phrase 'by ID' merely echoes the parameter description. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already fully documents the parameter, and the description offers no supplementary detail.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single card by ID'), and further specifies the return format ('full JSON'). It distinguishes itself from list_cards by emphasizing single-ID retrieval, making its purpose unambiguous even among many sibling tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_cards. It only implies usage (when you have a card ID and need one card), but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or recommend alternatives. This is insufficient for an agent to choose it confidently.

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