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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that calling with no slug returns a list of questions and that output is markdown, which is useful. But it doesn't disclose behavior beyond these — no info on pagination, answer length, or what happens with unsupported language values.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, includes the key usage note about omitting slug, and states the return format. Zero 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 read-only lookup tool with clear purposes, a 2-param schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the essentials well. It would benefit from a small note distinguishing this from sibling tools (e.g., single card meaning vs. question-answer), but overall it's complete for the tool's complexity.

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% and both parameters are well-described in the schema itself. The description adds value by explaining the slug-omission behavior (list all questions), which goes beyond the schema. Language parameter is fully documented with enum values in the schema, so the description doesn't need to repeat it.

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?

Description clearly states it returns the long-form answer to common love-tarot questions and which cards speak to them. It lists concrete examples ("will he come back", "does he miss me") and specifies the output format (markdown). Distinguishes itself from siblings which are about individual card meanings and card search.

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?

Description explicitly says calling with no slug lists available questions, which is clear usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like get_tarot_card_love_meaning or search_tarot_cards, leaving some ambiguity about differentiation.

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