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 behavioral context in the cost line (10 credits, Tier 1), which is not in the annotations. It stops short of explaining how the clarifier relates to the prior draw or any rate/draw constraints, so this is adequate but not rich.

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 functional sentence front-loads the purpose, followed by compact group and cost metadata. No filler, and the most important information leads. Slightly terse given the parameter burden, but structure is sound.

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 5-parameter tool at 40% coverage, the description omits how the clarify relates to the preceding draw, whether the prior card must be supplied, and what the seed/question/reversal options do. It is under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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% (seed, question, and allowReversed are undocumented), yet the description supplies no parameter guidance at all. It does not compensate for the coverage gap or explain how the clarifying card is linked to the primary draw via inputs.

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 resource (a single clarifying card) and its timing (after a primary draw), which is clear enough for an agent to know the operation. However, it does not differentiate this from the many tarot siblings (e.g. astroway_tarot_marseille_clarify, the various draw_* tools), so an agent cannot distinguish it without checking the deck group context.

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?

"after a primary draw" implies the sequencing context in which this tool applies, but it names no alternative and gives no explicit when/when-not conditions or prerequisites. Usage is left to inference.

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