Fate & Stars Tarot Knowledge

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: source links in results, explicit truncation, availableSections/missingSections coverage reporting, and error semantics (isError with suggestions, never an automatic substitute). What it omits is any note on cost, rate limits, or how large a full non-brief payload can get.

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?

Four tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Some phrasing is telegraphic ("truncation is explicit") and depends on the reader already knowing the response envelope, which costs a little readability.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description needn't document return values, and it correctly spends its budget on error behavior and coverage reporting instead. The remaining gap is the missing routing guidance against the two sibling tools, which matters for a lookup tool in a three-tool family.

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?

With only 50% schema coverage, the description compensates where it matters: the undocumented `card` parameter is explained as accepting names, slugs, numeric names, and Coins aliases, which the schema says nothing about. `brief` and `sections` are re-described at roughly the level the schema already gives, and `orientation` is only alluded to ("orientation meanings by default") rather than explained.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ("Read authored meanings" for a tarot card) and the title reinforces the lookup intent. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings search_tarot_cards and get_tarot_spreads, so the agent must infer that this is the identifier-based detail fetch.

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 gives parameter-level usage advice ("Use brief for bounded plain-text excerpts", "sections selects exact normalized section IDs") but never says when to call this versus search_tarot_cards or get_tarot_spreads. Usage is implied by the accepted identifier formats rather than stated as a routing rule.

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

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 a useful scope boundary ('does not perform a reading') and summarizes return content, though the latter is partly redundant with the existing output schema.

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 compact sentences with zero filler, front-loading the core action and following with the return/scope caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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, single-optional-param tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers both modes and the non-reading boundary. The main gap is the unexplained enum vocabulary, which an agent would still need to infer.

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%, and the enum values (guidance, situation, timeline, etc.) are undocumented. The description partially compensates by indicating the parameter selects one spread versus listing all, but it does not explain what any enum value means.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('List educational ... spread definitions, or inspect one spread') and clarifies the scope with 'does not perform a reading.' It does not name the sibling tools (get_card_meaning, search_tarot_cards), so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 two modes ('list' vs 'inspect one spread') imply the conditional use of the spread parameter, giving usable context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance and no mention of the sibling tools that also deal with tarot content.

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

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description legitimately adds matching semantics ('all meaningful query terms must match'), ranking order (exact names first, then themes/keywords), and the return payload (match reasons, canonical source links). That is useful behavior beyond the 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?

Four compact sentences covering ranking, supported domains, match semantics, ordering, and return content. Dense but each sentence carries information; the opening 'Rank English card names...' leads with mechanism rather than purpose, which is a minor front-loading weakness.

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?

With an output schema present the description need not detail returns, yet it still mentions match reasons and canonical links. For a read-only, idempotent search tool with all-optional params, the description plus schema and annotations give an agent enough to invoke it correctly.

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% across 3 params, so the description must compensate. It explains query semantics and empty-query behavior, and 'optionally by family' loosely gestures at the category enum, but the limit cap and the enum values themselves are left entirely to the schema, leaving gaps.

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?

States a specific verb (rank/search) and resource (78 tarot cards) and enumerates the searchable fields (card names, topics, keyword synonyms, overview/guide text). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings get_card_meaning or get_tarot_spreads, which keeps it below 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?

Provides one concrete usage mode — an empty query lists cards, optionally by family — which implies how to browse rather than search. However, it never says when to use this over get_card_meaning or get_tarot_spreads, so usage is only implied.

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