lemma_get_card_iframe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that the URL is short-lived, exposes real card credentials, and carries a security warning about not logging or storing it. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs.

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 concise sentence with the sensitive warning front-loaded. Every clause adds operational value: what the tool returns, its sensitivity, its expiration, and handling instructions. No wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, return value, sensitivity, expiration, and usage restrictions. Nothing necessary for a cautious agent to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for documenting the card_id parameter, but it does not. The parameter name is self-descriptive, but no additional meaning, format, or relationship to the card is provided.

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 retrieves a short-lived iframe URL that renders the card's full PAN/CVV. It is specific about the resource and purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as lemma_get_card, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 explicit conditional usage: 'only fetch it when the user explicitly needs to view card details' and adds a strong 'never log or store it' caution. It gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not name alternative sibling tools.

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