The length and readability of credit card agreements, in which issuers disclose their fees, penalties and rewards restrictions, has long been the subject of criticism by consumer advocates. Some are printed in fonts small enough for newspapers to consider off-limits. Others squeeze the type together so tightly that the low-hanging letters of one line bleed into the one beneath it. The complexity of the language, albeit more subjective, has also drawn plenty of fire.

Now, two recent studies shed some light on the dangers of putting such critical information in such densely packed documents. Together, they suggest consumers could miss key points when skipping ahead to the signature line but that the act of reading and understanding such a document in its entirety is beyond the ability of the average applicant.

In a study of online card applications from the 10 largest issuers, card-comparison site CardHub.com found that many applications buried important information about balance transfer fees and the redemption value of rewards points deep in text-heavy paragraphs where it could easily be missed.

A distracted or skimming reader could easily miss such information, says Odysseas Papadimitriou, the chief executive of CardHub.

A separate study suggests even a thorough reading of a credit-card agreement is no guarantee of understanding it. The average credit-card agreement is written on a 12th-grade reading level, three grades above the average American's reading level, according to the study by CreditCards.com. The findings suggest four out of five adults wouldn t be able to understand the documents if they tried.

A spokesman for the American Bankers Association says that disclosures have been substantially improved as a result of the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, with key points about interest rates and fees summarized in two tables included in all solicitations, card agreements and monthly statements. That disclosure requirement took effect just six weeks ago, and now, your ability to understand what your credit is going to cost you is much better than it was a year ago, the spokesman says.

Of course, the legal onus is on the consumer to read any credit-card offer thoroughly and carefully before applying for the card, regardless of how easy it is, and industry analysts and lawyers say there's no shortcut for combing through these materials.

Confused customers should call their issuer and ask for an explanation of any unclear points, the Bankers Association spokesman says.

When evaluating a credit card offer for themselves, consumers can start with a basic common-sense test: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

"If you see some very attractive sounding teaser deal, just know for sure there's a trap somewhere," says Tim Chen, the CEO of NerdWallet, a credit card comparison site.

Here are five more tips for avoiding credit-card traps hidden in the fine print:

Seek out consumer-friendly cards.
"I think a company that is more up-front is less likely to do something to you down the road that would be a surprise, Papadimitriou says. Cards from Capital One (COF) and Bank of America (BAC) scored best in CardHub's survey of major issuers application materials. The banks's credit-card agreements were also written at or below the average American's reading level, according to the CreditCards.com analysis.

Credit unions tend to have fewer hidden fees, as well as lower interest rates, Chen says. They tend to offer less-generous rewards than major national banks, but some consumers who carry a balance may benefit by using a credit-union card, he says.

Focus on key points.
For consumers who carry a balance, introductory and regular interest rates and balance transfer fees are the most important points to look for in a new card offer, Papadimitriou says. Balance transfer fees can undermine the financial benefit of transferring a balance, he says.

For those who pay off their balance in full each month, rewards are the main value proposition of a credit card, but cards that allow users to earn points or miles often don t make it easy to find out what those points are worth or how easy it is to redeem those miles, Papadimitriou says. "My recommendation is always go for a cash-back credit card because of that issue," he says.

Watch for fuzzy language.
Phrases like "up to," or "as low as," should be red flags for consumers, Papadimitriou says. Vague language like that "can hide a really broad range of values," he says, like a 0%-for-18-months offer that could turn out to be 0%-for-0-months for some customers.

Look out for traps.
Secured and prepaid cards tend to come with a particularly large number of well-hidden transaction and other fees, Chen says. In some cases, rewards cards don't clearly explain how quickly points can expire or that cardholders are capped in the number of points they can earn each year, he says.

Many card agreements also contain a clause stating that any disputes will be resolved through mandatory arbitration rather than through the courts, says Cary Flitter, an attorney with Lundy, Flitter, Beldecos & Berger, P.C. who teaches consumer law at Temple University. In some cases, the clause will give consumers 30 or 60 days to send a letter opting out of this requirement, meaning that consumers who fail to opt out of arbitration will not be able to argue they were unfairly trapped into giving up their right to sue, Flitter says. Consumers should look for that clause and opt out if possible, he says.

Don't spend until you understand.
A consumer who signs a credit-card application essentially agrees in advance to be bound by terms and conditions he hasn't seen yet, Flitter says. It's crucial that consumers take the time to look for some of these fine-print traps in a card agreement before they start using a new card, so they can easily cancel the card if it turns out to come with too many strings, he says.

Correction: The study that assessed the reading level required to process the average credit-card agreement was published by CreditCards.com. Because of an editing error, a previous version of this story attributed the study to CardHub.com.