evaluate_card

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, indicating safe read and potential unexpected results. The description adds context about output (roles, keywords, archetypes) but does not disclose further behavioral traits like data freshness or rate limits.

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 concise: two sentences front-load purpose and parameter context. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered externally. The description appropriately covers purpose and parameter source. It is complete for a simple read-only analysis tool, though could mention that it is for a single card ID.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'card_id' comes from search, adding source context beyond the schema's type and requirement. This is helpful for agents to know how to obtain the ID.

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 'Strategic analysis: roles, keywords, archetypes', clearly indicating the tool analyzes a card's strategic aspects. While it distinguishes from siblings like 'find_cards_by_role' by focusing on evaluation of a single card, it could be more specific with a verb like 'Analyze'.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'card_id: From search', suggesting the tool is used after searching for a card. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the 20 sibling tools.

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