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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context (10 credits, Tier 1 cost), but says nothing about the shape of the returned meanings or whether interpretation varies with the question parameter.

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 sentence plus bracketed group/cost metadata; nothing is wasted and the core purpose lands first. It is terse to the point of under-specification, which is a completeness problem rather than a verbosity one.

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 with four parameters, one of which (question) is undocumented in both schema and description, and no prerequisite flow for sourcing slugs, the definition is too thin for an agent to call this confidently.

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 50%: fields and precision are documented in the schema, but cards and the 500-char question have no descriptions anywhere. The description never touches parameters, so the cryptic 'question' argument (interpretation context?) and the slug format for cards remain unexplained, leaving the coverage gap uncompensated.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve list of card slugs into meanings.' An agent knows this converts slug identifiers into interpretive text. It does not differentiate itself from near siblings such as astroway_tarot_marseille_cards_slug or astroway_tarot_marseille_clarify, so it stops short of 5.

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 statement, no mention that slugs must first be obtained from a cards/slug listing tool, and no exclusion relative to clarify, timing, or the spread-draw tools. The description is purely declarative with no routing guidance.

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