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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds pricing context (10 credits, Tier 1) but says nothing about determinism/seed behavior or the effect of allowReversed, which are behavioral traits not in the annotations.

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 core spread description is one efficient, front-loaded sentence with positional labels, followed by two short bracketed metadata tags. Nothing is redundant, though the quoted source attribution is more flavor than functional information.

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 the spread layout is fully described. However, for a tool with zero required parameters and an undocumented question/allowReversed, an agent lacks enough to invoke it optimally; the definition is adequate but leaves meaningful 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 description coverage is only 40%: fields and precision are documented, but seed, question, and allowReversed are bare. The description does not compensate, providing no explanation of what question does or that allowReversed controls upright/reversed orientation, so half the parameters remain opaque.

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 a specific verb and resource (draw a 5-card Marseille reduced cross) and even enumerates the five positional meanings, which differentiates it from other tarot draw tools. It does not name or contrast with the nearest siblings (draw_celtic_cross, draw_seven_card, draw_three_card), so a routing decision still needs the sibling list.

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 when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite many sibling spread tools. The positional meanings hint at the scope of the reading, but nothing tells the agent which situations call for this spread over a seven-card or Celtic cross.

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