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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read. The description adds the credit cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and group tag, which are useful selection details not present in annotations. Return format is not described, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 description is one short phrase plus two bracketed metadata tags with no filler, and it is front-loaded with the resource scope. Every element earns its place, though the fragment style is slightly terse.

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?

For a simple catalog-listing tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description supplies the essential scope (which 16 cards). Usage routing to alternatives is absent, but the structured fields cover safety and return shape.

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 100%, and both parameters (fields, precision) are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra syntax, defaults, or examples for those parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific resource, the 16 Court cards, and enumerates the ranks and suits, which distinguishes it from the Majors and Minors siblings. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve,' but the scope is unambiguous enough for an agent to know what subset is returned.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternative is given; it does not say to use this instead of astroway_tarot_rider_waite_minors or astroway_tarot_rider_waite_cards. The only context is the group and credit cost.

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