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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful cost context (10 credits, Tier 1) and flags that it is a cursor-friendly alias, but does not explain determinism of seed, how allowReversed affects output, or spread ordering.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the essential spread/deck phrase first. The bracketed group/cost/alias lines are metadata rather than prose, but nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a 5-parameter card-draw tool the description leaves usage, most parameter meaning, and the effect of the layout setting undocumented. It is not complete enough for confident 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 only 40%: fields and precision are documented, but seed, question, and allowReversed carry no schema descriptions and the tool description compensates for none of them. Given the sub-50% coverage, the description should have explained these semantics.

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 names a concrete spread (an adapted Celtic Cross) on a specific deck (Lenormand), which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling draws like three_card, line_of_five, or grand_tableau. It is essentially the title restated, so it adds little beyond the name, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to pick a Celtic Cross over the other Lenormand spreads, nor any prerequisites (e.g. when a 10-card layout is warranted vs. a smaller one). The alias note tells the agent this duplicates another tool but not which to prefer.

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