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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the result is a structured array of exactly 22 cards, response_format switches between markdown and json, and a full output/error contract is linked. No contradictions with annotations.

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 leads with the core purpose, then uses compact labeled sections for workflow, input contract, disambiguation, and documentation. This is easy for an agent to scan. It is slightly longer than the single-parameter tool strictly requires, but every section contributes useful selection or invocation information.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter, full parameter schema, rich annotations, and an output schema available, the description covers what the tool returns, how output format is controlled, how it fits in a workflow, and how it differs from siblings. No meaningful gap remains for correct selection and invocation.

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 100%: the only parameter, response_format, has an enum, a default, and a descriptive explanation in the schema. The description's INPUT CONTRACT section largely restates this information and adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns all 22 Major Arcana cards (The Fool through The World) as a structured array.' It precisely defines scope and distinguishes itself from related tarot tools in the 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section, naming asterwise_get_tarot_cards and asterwise_get_tarot_suit with their differing scopes.

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 WORKFLOW section states that the tool is standalone ('BEFORE: None') and suggests a downstream use via asterwise_draw_tarot_cards. The DO NOT CONFUSE section identifies alternatives and their scopes, but it does not state an explicit conditional such as 'Use this when you need all Major Arcana cards and nothing else.' Context is clear, but the decision rule is not fully spelled out.

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