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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the cost context ('10 credits, Tier 1'), which is genuinely useful meta-info but not behavioral detail about the draw itself (e.g., whether allowReversed alters output, whether seed reproducibility matters).

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded, with the substantive purpose stated first. The bracket tags (Group, Cost) are boilerplate but carry real information. It leans toward under-specification rather than verbosity, but no sentence is wasted.

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 five parameters, four of which are undocumented, and no usage routing against ~15 sibling draw tools, the description is too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the missing parameter meaning and absence of draw-selection guidance leave real gaps.

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 described in the schema, while 'seed', 'question', and 'allowReversed' have no documentation. The description adds nothing about any parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap — notably silent on whether 'question' shapes the reading or what 'allowReversed' defaults to.

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 the spread size and topic ('7-card relationship dynamics'), which adds specificity beyond the tool name and distinguishes it from siblings like draw_three_card and draw_grand_tableau. However, it is a noun fragment rather than a stated action, so the actual draw operation is only implied by the tool name.

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 choose this spread over the many other Lenormand and tarot draw tools (three-card, line-of-five, nine-card square, grand tableau). No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of when a relationship question warrants this seven-card spread.

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