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.