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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add operational context. It details what each of the seven positions represents and states that the same seed always draws the same seven cards into the same positions, which is useful and goes beyond the structured 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?

The front-loaded sentence communicates the core operation well, but the description then becomes long and repetitive with overlapping marketing-style phrases such as 'Perfect for career coaching platforms, professional development apps, business consulting tools...' and later 'Ideal for employees, entrepreneurs, freelancers...'. It is informative but not particularly concise.

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?

Given the tool is a read-only tarot reading with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description answers the main contextual questions: what the spread covers, who it is for, and what use cases apply. It could have explicitly described the return shape, but the list of career positions plus the schema parameter documentation is enough for an agent to invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a thorough description already. The tool description adds little about the parameters themselves, though it reinforces how the 'question' parameter focuses the spread by giving the seven positions context. That is a minor addition rather than a significant compensation; the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Perform a comprehensive 7-card career tarot spread') and a precise resource ('career tarot spread'), and further distinguishes it from sibling spread tools by naming the SWOT-based business focus and seven specific positions. This clearly separates it from love, three-card, daily, and yes/no spreads.

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 concrete contexts where the spread should be used: career transitions, job offer evaluation, promotion decisions, starting a business, workplace conflicts, finding a calling, and strategic career planning. It does not explicitly mention excluded or alternative sibling tools, but the career-focused use cases are specific enough to guide an agent toward this tool and away from general or love spreads.

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