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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the credit cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the spread group, which is useful operational context, but says nothing about randomization, seeding, or reversed cards.

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?

One front-loaded line plus metadata tags. Nothing wasted, though the tags occupy space that could have carried usage or parameter guidance.

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 draw tool with three undocumented inputs and many sibling spreads, the description leaves the agent without enough to select or configure the call 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 40%; only `fields` and `precision` are documented in the schema. The domain-critical parameters `seed`, `question`, and `allowReversed` have no schema description and no mention in the tool description, so their behavior is unexplained.

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 the resource ('Five-card linear story spread') and the card count does implicitly differentiate it from the sibling three-card, nine-card-square and grand-tableau draws. However, there is no verb ('draw'), and the description never names the alternatives it is distinguished from, so the agent must infer the routing.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not, or alternative guidance. A crowded sibling set of Lenormand draws (three_card, 9_card_square, grand_tableau, relationship, celtic_cross) offers no clue which spread to pick.

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