lemma_get_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' and the listed return fields make clear this is a read operation returning a detailed snapshot of card data. It could add error behavior or permission expectations, but the described behavior is transparent and not misleading.

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 conveys the operation, resource, identifier, and the important returned fields. There is no unnecessary repetition of schema details or filler.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description gives a fairly complete picture of what will be returned. It would be stronger with explicit usage boundaries relative to sibling tools, but the core invocation context is sufficient.

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 confirms that card_id is the identifier of the card to fetch ('by ID'), which adds some meaning beyond the bare string schema. Still, it does not specify the ID format, source, or expected example value, so compensation is only partial.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('issued virtual debit card by ID'), then enumerates the returned attributes: nickname, last 4, status, authorization controls, and spending limit. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lemma_get_card_iframe, lemma_create_card, and lemma_delete_card.

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 the obvious use case: retrieve a card's details by its card_id. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools or when not to use it, such as when the card iframe or card lifecycle operations are needed.

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