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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added behavioral fact is the cost (10 credits, Tier 1), which is genuinely useful for an agent, but it says nothing about the allowReversed behavior, determinism via seed, or what the drawn cards represent.

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 spread definition first and metadata tags after. No wasted prose, though the bracketed Group/Cost tags are metadata rather than description content.

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, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 5-parameter tool at 40% schema coverage with no usage guidance, the definition leaves gaps an agent would have to infer from the name alone.

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 only 40%, so the schema does not fully document the 5 parameters (seed, question, and allowReversed lack descriptions). The description adds no parameter meaning at all — no hint about what 'question' does, how 'seed' provides reproducibility, or how 'allowReversed' affects the draw. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 exact spread layout ('Subject / Situation / Outcome three-card line'), which specifies both the resource (Lenormand three-card draw) and its positional meaning. This distinguishes it from sibling Lenormand spreads like line_of_five, grand_tableau, and relationship, though the verb 'draw' is only implied via the name and title rather than stated.

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 statement of when to choose this spread over alternatives such as astroway_tarot_lenormand_draw_line_of_five or draw_relationship, nor any prerequisite or context. The positional labels hint at a simple situation-reading use case but nothing is explicit.

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