AstroWay Tarot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds that it returns a 'plain-text human-readable summary' and clarifies the budget-checking purpose, providing useful context beyond 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?

Three efficient sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and return format. Front-loaded with key information, no wasted words.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description specifies the return format (plain-text human-readable summary). For a simple status check tool, this is complete and sufficient.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds value by hinting at the output format.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Check' and the resource 'API key status' with specific attributes (tier, credit balance, rate limits, monthly cycle reset). It distinguishes itself from the many sibling astrology calculation tools.

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?

Explicitly instructs to run this tool BEFORE invoking expensive endpoints, providing credit thresholds (Tier 4+ at 100+ credits, Tier 6/7 at 500-5000 credits) to confirm budget.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful guarantee that the emitted schema is the schema the endpoint validates and that the objects carry no vendor-specific fields, but says nothing about cost, rate limits, or response size behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 visible portion is front-loaded on what is returned and the two format shapes, with no filler. It is somewhat terse for a tool with six parameters and a listed default/select semantics, but every visible sentence carries 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent profile. The remaining gap is routing: nothing tells the agent when to choose this over astroway_mcp_tools_list or similar listing tools.

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 100%, so every one of the six parameters is already documented in the schema, including the format enum and the select/fields/precision semantics. The description restates the format option rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage 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 states a specific verb and resource: returning agent tool definitions generated from the live OpenAPI document, in either OpenAI or Anthropic shape. That is clear enough to differentiate it from report/chart tools in the namespace, but it never names the closest sibling (astroway_mcp_tools_list) or explains the distinction, so it falls short of a 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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no stated alternative. The mention of `format=openai` as the default is parameter behavior, not a usage rule, and the agent is left to infer whether this is for building an agent, curated retrieval, or an MCP tool listing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety bar is low; the description still adds real value by clarifying that endpoints are NOT invoked and that results are cached with a 5-minute TTL. It also discloses the return shape (total + per-endpoint breakdown with tier annotations), which is meaningful since no output schema exists.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and the non-invocation guarantee, followed by workflow guidance and the cache note. Nothing is wasted.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return value, and the invocation-free and cache behaviors are covered. For a one-parameter, read-only estimator this is fully sufficient.

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 100% and the single 'endpoints' parameter is fully documented with examples and the leading-slash rule in the schema. The description only restates 'one or more endpoints' without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Estimate the credit cost of one or more endpoints') and immediately pins the scope with 'WITHOUT invoking them', which no sibling tool does. An agent can distinguish this from the many invocation/report siblings at a glance.

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?

Gives explicit workflow guidance: 'estimate first, ask user confirmation, then invoke' for multi-step planning. This is clear when-to-use context, though it names no alternative tool or when-not-to-use condition.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful cost context (10 credits, Tier 1) and flags that it is a cursor-friendly alias, but does not explain determinism of seed, how allowReversed affects output, or spread ordering.

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 essential spread/deck phrase first. The bracketed group/cost/alias lines are metadata rather than prose, but nothing is padded.

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 card-draw tool the description leaves usage, most parameter meaning, and the effect of the layout setting undocumented. It is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 carry no schema descriptions and the tool description compensates for none of them. Given the sub-50% coverage, the description should have explained these semantics.

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 concrete spread (an adapted Celtic Cross) on a specific deck (Lenormand), which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling draws like three_card, line_of_five, or grand_tableau. It is essentially the title restated, so it adds little beyond the name, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to pick a Celtic Cross over the other Lenormand spreads, nor any prerequisites (e.g. when a 10-card layout is warranted vs. a smaller one). The alias note tells the agent this duplicates another tool but not which to prefer.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behaviour, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely useful operational facts the annotations do not carry: the tool is an MCP Advanced feature costing 100 credits (Tier 4). It still says nothing about how rounds affect runtime or output, or whether chart context is mandatory for a meaningful debate.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by group and cost metadata; there is no filler or repetition. The brevity is somewhat a result of under-specification rather than disciplined editing, but structurally it is clean.

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?

This is a high-complexity tool: 8 parameters, a nested chart object with detailed validation rules, and an output schema. The description covers none of that complexity and omits the astrological framing entirely, leaving an agent to infer from the schema alone what inputs matter. Output format is covered by the output schema, so that omission is acceptable, but the rest is a real gap.

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 38% and several parameters (topic, agentA, agentB, rounds, language) carry no schema description, so the description is expected to compensate — and it does not, adding no parameter meaning whatsoever. 'multi-round' only obliquely hints at the rounds parameter, and nothing explains what agentA/agentB strings should contain or how chart is consumed.

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 concrete verb and output ('2 personas debate a topic, multi-round transcript'), so an agent knows this produces a debate transcript rather than a single answer. However, it never differentiates itself from near-neighbours like astroway_mcp_ai_chat or astroway_mcp_multi_agent_coordinate, and it omits that the debate is anchored to an astrological chart, which the schema makes clear.

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 at all: no statement of what situation calls for a two-persona debate over a single-shot chat, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The only extra text is group and cost metadata, which is billing context rather than usage guidance.

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

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 structurally. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing a 10-credit Tier 1 cost, but omits what the status payload represents or whether it reflects live pool state.

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?

It is very short and front-loads the one substantive fact, but the first sentence is a dangling fragment rather than a complete statement of purpose, and the bracket tags read as metadata padding rather than description.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety, so the description's remaining burden is small. It is still thin on what 'pool status' reports and when it should be invoked, leaving a minor gap for a zero-required-parameter status tool.

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 100% and both optional compaction parameters (fields, precision) are thoroughly documented in the schema with examples. The description adds nothing about 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 '8 personas with specialties' is a noun fragment that hints at the returned content but never states what the tool does or what 'pool status' means. It does not distinguish this from siblings like astroway_agent_tools or astroway_mcp_tools_list, which also concern agent/persona inventory.

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 indication of when to call this versus the many sibling agent/tools-listing tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only guidance offered is the cost tag '[Cost: 10 credits (Tier 1)]', which helps budget decisions but says nothing about selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld, non-idempotent), and the description usefully adds context beyond that: a 10-turn history cap, 21 supported languages, four persona voices, and a cost behavior where sending your own provider key drops the turn to 5 credits. It stops short of describing failure modes or what the chart object must contain to succeed.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core differentiator ('answered from the positions we computed') before secondary facts about history, languages, and pricing. The trailing group/cost tags are metadata rather than prose, so there is minimal waste.

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 description covers the AI-behavioral surface (grounding, history, language, persona, cost). For a 7-parameter tool with nested objects and low schema coverage, it could say more about the chart input contract, but the essentials are present.

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 43%, so the description should compensate, and it partly does by explaining history (10 turns), language (21), and persona (four voices). However, it says nothing about the required `message`, the complex nested `chart`, or the compact-mode `fields`/`precision` parameters, leaving those to the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource — a chat grounded in computed chart positions rather than the model's sun-sign memory — which is clearly distinguishable from report-generation siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative among the many AI siblings (explain_aspect, explain_transit, comparison_coach), so it falls short of a 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?

The description explains what the tool is but never says when to reach for it versus the other AI siblings or the narrative-report tools. No prerequisites or selection conditions are given; the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

The annotations already declare a safe read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds useful cost context (100 credits, Tier 4) and group membership, but does not disclose rate limits, auth requirements, or what the AI coach actually returns. With annotations covering safety, this partial extra context merits a 3.

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 short and front-loaded, with cost and group metadata placed clearly after the core sentence. It wastes no words, although it is arguably too sparse for a tool of this complexity.

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 6-parameter tool with nested chart objects and multiple AI/synastry siblings, the description is far too thin. The output schema covers return values, but the description does not explain what 'coaching' entails or when to select this tool over alternatives, leaving a substantial contextual gap.

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 67%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. It says 'two charts' but does not clarify the role of the required question field, language, precision, or fields parameters, nor does it help compensate for the less-documented parameters.

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 resource (two charts) and domain (relationship dynamics), but the verb 'Coach' is vague about what the tool actually produces. It does not distinguish this from sibling reports like astroway_reports_ai_synastry_narrative, leaving an agent unsure whether this is an interactive coaching session, a report, or something else.

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 is provided. The description does not mention when this tool should be chosen over similar two-chart tools such as synastry reports or multi-chart context, nor are any preconditions or exclusions stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added behavioral fact is the cost (100 credits, Tier 4), which is genuinely useful for an agent budgeting calls, but nothing is said about latency, auth, or output shape.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the terseness here reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication. The metadata lines consume half the length without adding invocation help.

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 no prose, but the description leaves key input questions open: how planets must be named, which chart object is required for a natal calculation, and what the aspectType enum means in context. For a 7-parameter tool with a nested birth-data object, this is thin.

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 43%, and the undescribed parameters include the three required ones (planet1, planet2, aspectType). The phrase 'between two planets' loosely implies planet1/planet2 but gives no naming convention or accepted values, and aspectType, language, fields and precision get nothing despite the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: an explanation of an aspect between two planets. An agent can tell what it does, though it never contrasts itself with the sibling astroway_mcp_ai_explain_transit, which is the nearest alternative.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as explain_transit or the report tools. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful operational context by disclosing the cost (100 credits, Tier 4) and the AI grouping, which helps an agent budget. It does not explain the non-idempotent nature of an AI-generated explanation or any latency/rate behavior, so it adds some but not rich value.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence carries the core purpose, with the group and cost tags kept as structured metadata rather than prose. It is tight and waste-free, though its brevity edges into under-specification rather than model conciseness.

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 an 8-parameter tool with a nested chart object and five required fields, the description omits routing guidance against several plausible siblings and says nothing about the transit inputs. The presence of an output schema excuses it from describing return values, but the selection and input story is still incomplete.

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 38% and the five required parameters (chart, transitDate, transitPlanet, natalPlanet, aspectType) carry no schema descriptions at all. The description only obliquely implies a transit/natal pairing and says nothing about expected values or formats for those required fields, so it does not 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Explain' applied to 'a current transit hitting your natal chart.' An agent can tell what the tool produces. It stops short of distinguishing itself from close siblings such as astroway_mcp_ai_explain_aspect or astroway_reports_ai_transit_narrative, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The sentence implies the context (a transit to your natal chart) but gives no condition that would route an agent here instead of the aspect explainer or the transit narrative report. This matches the 'no guidance' band.

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

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It does add parallel execution and a 100-credit Tier 4 cost, which is useful. However, it omits latency implications from LLM synthesis, auth requirements, and any detail about valid agent choices.

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 text is very short and front-loads the core action before the group and cost tags. No sentence is wasted, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than thorough contextual completeness.

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?

This is a complex tool with a nested chart object, six parameters, required agent and question fields, and many sibling tools. The description explains almost none of that beyond a two-line summary and cost, leaving significant gaps even though an output schema exists for return values.

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 50%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning for question, agents, chart, fields, language, or precision. In particular, the required 'agents' array and its 2-4 item constraint, as well as how 'chart' relates to the question, are left entirely to the schema.

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 high-level verb and resource ('Run N personas in parallel + LLM synthesis') but does not define what a persona is, what is being coordinated, or how this differs from siblings such as astroway_mcp_agent_debate. The [Group] and [Cost] tags are metadata rather than purpose clarification.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The closest sibling, astroway_mcp_agent_debate, is not mentioned, and the cost tier alone does not tell an agent when this tool should be selected.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered elsewhere. The description adds only the cost tag (10 credits, Tier 1); it says nothing about batch limits, what the compact response excludes, or the idempotentHint=false implication that repeated calls may vary.

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 single sentence plus metadata tags are front-loaded and free of padding, so it is structurally clean. However, the brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness: the sentence carries almost no callable 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 described, but for a tool with an enum-driven intent, a compact-mode fields selector and a 6-item batch cap, the description omits nearly everything an agent needs to choose and configure it.

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 50%, so the description is expected to compensate — and it does not. The compact-mode controls (fields, precision) and the intent enum are never mentioned in the description, leaving the agent to discover their meaning entirely from the schema.

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?

"Compact context for MCP agents working across multiple charts" restates the tool name (multi-chart context) without a concrete verb or resource for what is actually produced. It never says it computes natal chart data for multiple subjects, nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling report/chart tools like astroway_reports_natal or astroway_reports_synastry.

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?

The only usage signal is the implied "working across multiple charts," from which an agent might infer batch multi-subject use. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no mention of when a single-chart or report sibling is preferable, despite ~40 alternatives.

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

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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds cost and group context, which is useful, but does not disclose any operational behavior such as result format, ranking details, or rate-limit implications.

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 definition is very short and front-loads the core phrase before the bracketed metadata. There is no wasted prose, though the concision contributes to the broader underspecification problem rather than being a structural flaw itself.

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?

The tool takes five parameters including a nested chart object, exists among many siblings, and has an output schema. Despite that complexity, the description does not explain selection criteria, query semantics, or how this differs from report-generation tools, leaving it materially incomplete for agent routing.

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 moderate at 60%, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It does not clarify what 'query' should contain, how 'topK' affects results, or how 'chart' is used, so key semantics remain dependent on the schema alone.

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 says 'Keyword-tag scoring over chart chunks,' which reveals the mechanism and resource type, but it never states the core action as a verb such as 'search' and does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling retrieval/report tools. An agent can infer it is a retrieval tool, but the purpose remains vague.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives to consider. It only supplies group and cost metadata, leaving the agent with no routing signal among the sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world, non-idempotent). The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond them: the response arrives as Server-Sent Events, and each call costs 100 credits (Tier 4). It says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or what the stream events look like, so it 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 front-loaded sentence that states the core capability, followed by two bracketed metadata tags. Very tight, though the group/cost tags sit after the payload rather than being folded in naturally.

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 5-parameter tool with a nested birth-chart object, no output schema, and only 60% schema description coverage, the definition is thin. It does not describe the streamed response shape, streaming lifecycle, or the required message parameter, and gives no guidance on how chart context should be formed.

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 60% and the nested chart object carries extensive inline documentation that the description does not repeat. The 'optional chart context' phrase confirms the chart parameter exists but adds no semantics for message, language, fields, or precision, so it does not 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?

States a specific verb and resource: an SSE streaming chat completion, with the chart-context option noted. It is clearer than a bare 'chat', but it never distinguishes itself from sibling astroway_mcp_ai_chat (presumably the non-streaming counterpart) or astroway_mcp_tool_call_stream, so the agent must guess which chat entry point to pick.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The description notes that chart context is optional but never says when you should supply it or how it changes the answer, and it never mentions the sibling chat tools as alternatives.

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

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 without the description. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in annotations: the 10-credit Tier 1 cost. However, for a streaming tool it says nothing about stream termination, error semantics, or partial delivery, which is the behavior an agent most needs here.

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?

It is short and the core statement is front-loaded, so nothing is wasted. But the two bracketed metadata lines are boilerplate and the resulting length is too thin for the tool's complexity, so brevity here reads as under-specification rather than tightness.

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 tool with 5 parameters (including a nested arbitrary 'args' object), no output schema, and an opaque streaming return, the definition is far too thin: it never explains what the streamed envelope contains, how the stream ends, or how 'args' maps to the target tool. An agent must guess at most of the call contract.

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%: 'tool' (the sole required parameter) and 'args' carry no description, and 'language' has only an enum. The description supplies zero parameter guidance, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a 5-parameter tool with a nested free-form object.

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?

It pairs a specific verb ('SSE-stream') with a resource ('tool call envelope'), which is more than a tautology, but 'tool call envelope' is unexplained jargon and the definition does nothing to separate it from close siblings like astroway_mcp_streaming or astroway_mcp_tools_list. An agent cannot tell from this text which one to pick.

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 use this tool, when not to, or what alternative exists for the same need. The only context is the group/cost tag, which tells the agent a price but not a use case.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a spec version and notes that cost is not in the public credit manifest, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explain what the manifest contains, how it is scoped, or any other operational behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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 short and front-loads its main claim about being an auto-generated manifest. The bracketed group and cost lines add metadata without excessive verbosity. It is efficient, though the bracket metadata is only marginally useful for tool selection.

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 and the input schema is fully documented, so return values and parameters do not need explanation in the description. However, the description remains thin on purpose and usage guidance, making it only minimally complete for an agent deciding whether to call this tool. The low complexity of the tool keeps it from being inadequate, but notable gaps remain.

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 100%, so both parameters (fields and precision) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is in the input schema. With complete schema coverage and no additional description detail, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 says it is an auto-generated tool manifest for MCP clients, which identifies the general resource but uses no action verb and does not explicitly state that it lists available MCP tools. It also does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as astroway_agent_tools or the MCP-related tools. Purpose is therefore implied rather than clearly 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?

The only usage context is the phrase 'for MCP clients,' which implies an audience but gives no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tools. This is the same level as a definition that provides only an implied context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds the cost ('10 credits (Tier 1)') and a taxonomy group, which are useful behavioral/metering details not present in the structured fields. It does not describe the payload or return shape, though an output schema exists.

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 prose is extremely tight and front-loads the resource identity, with cost and group following as compact bracket tags. Nothing is redundant or bloated, though the brevity edges into under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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?

Given a fully documented two-parameter schema, an output schema, and rich read-only annotations, the definition has enough structure to be callable. The main missing context is usage routing among the many Lenormand/Tarot siblings, which leaves an agent to infer when this reference listing is preferable to a draw tool.

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 100%, so both 'fields' and 'precision' are fully explained in the input schema, including the dotted-path syntax and rounding semantics. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as a 36-card Lenormand oracle deck but never supplies a verb or action, leaving it to implication that the tool returns the full card list. It does not differentiate this reference listing from siblings such as astroway_tarot_lenormand_cards_slug or the various draw_* spread tools. The title 'Lenormand: All Cards' carries much of the disambiguation that the description itself lacks.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of the many sibling tools (draw_three_card, draw_grand_tableau, cards_slug, houses) that an agent could confuse with this one. The closest thing to context is the group tag '[Group: Tarot: Lenormand]', which categorizes rather than routes.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a group label and a cost caveat ('see your plan — endpoint not in the public credit manifest'), which is genuinely useful context but does not disclose return behavior or rate limits.

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 sentence is front-loaded and waste-free. The bracketed group and cost lines are boilerplate but short and clearly separated from the functional description.

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 single-record lookup with a full output schema, complete param coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies enough. Only the absence of sibling routing keeps it from being fully complete.

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 100%, so slug, fields and precision are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only 'by slug' and nothing about the compact-mode fields/precision parameters, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Single Lenormand card lookup by slug.' The words 'Single' and 'by slug' distinguish it from the sibling list tool astroway_tarot_lenormand_cards, though the sibling is never named explicitly.

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, no mention of alternatives such as the plural cards list or the draw_* spread tools. The agent must infer that this fetches one card's record from the name alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds two things they do not: the draw is date-seeded (i.e., reproducible for a given date rather than random) and it costs 10 credits at Tier 1. Cost and determinism are genuine invocation-relevant facts for an agent budgeting calls.

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 tight sentence carries the core behavior, with group and cost metadata in bracketed tags that scan quickly. Nothing is redundant, though the sparseness means some agent-facing questions go unanswered rather than being deliberately omitted.

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 zero-required-parameter tool with an output schema, the return-value burden is lifted, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still missing: whether `date` defaults to today, and any routing signal versus the near-identical three-card and other-tradition daily siblings, which is the main risk for this agent.

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?

With 67% schema description coverage, the schema documents `fields` and `precision` in detail, so the description need not repeat them. It only gestures at `date` via 'based on date seed' and never states the expected YYYY-MM-DD format or that the parameter is optional and defaults to today, leaving a small gap the schema's bare pattern does not fill.

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 verb and resource ('daily three-card draw') and adds the generative mechanism ('based on date seed'), so an agent knows this is a deterministic, date-keyed draw rather than a random one. It does not name the very similar sibling astroway_tarot_lenormand_draw_three_card, so the distinction is inferable but not 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?

Nothing says when to pick this over astroway_tarot_lenormand_draw_three_card, astroway_tarot_marseille_daily, or astroway_tarot_rider_waite_daily. The word 'Daily' hints at a daily-card-of-the-day use case but no alternative or exclusion is given, so the agent must guess.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only added behavioral content is the cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and group label, which is useful meta-context but says nothing about output shape or how allowReversed interacts with Lenormand readings.

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?

Two terse lines with the layout semantics front-loaded and no filler; the cost/group metadata is compact. It is efficient, though the terseness arguably comes at the cost of the missing usage and parameter guidance noted elsewhere.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and cost/group are covered. However, for a 5-param tool at 40% schema coverage with a meaningful allowReversed flag, the description leaves an agent without enough to invoke confidently beyond the defaults.

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%: seed, question, and allowReversed have no schema descriptions, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. allowReversed in particular (default true) is semantically loaded for a Lenormand draw and is left entirely unexplained.

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 explains what the spread's layout means (rows = past/present/future, cols = mind/heart/body), which is genuinely useful and distinguishes this 3x3 square from sibling draws like line_of_five or grand_tableau. It never states the core action (draw nine Lenormand cards), but the name carries that and the layout semantics are specific.

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 indication of what question types suit a 9-card square, and no reference to alternatives despite a large family of tarot_lenormand_draw_* siblings (three_card, line_of_five, grand_tableau, celtic_cross). The layout description implies a use case but nothing is stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the billing dimension (10 credits, Tier 1), which an agent genuinely needs before invoking a metered tool, but it says nothing about how the draw behaves, what the spread positions are, or whether the question influences the result.

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?

Two short, front-loaded lines with no filler; the spread identity leads and the cost metadata is clearly bracketed. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than true economy.

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 described, but the description omits spread structure, question handling, and the meaning of allowReversed, which are the details an agent needs to invoke a 5-parameter metered tool correctly.

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%, so the description is expected to compensate for undocumented parameters, and it does not. Nothing explains seed, question, or allowReversed, all of which materially affect a divination draw, leaving the burden entirely on a partially documented schema.

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 spread (Adapted Celtic Cross) and the divination system (Lenormand cards), which distinguishes it from sibling Celtic Cross draws in the Marseille and Rider-Waite families. It is clear but does not explicitly name or route away from the near-duplicate sibling astroway_lnd_celtic_cross_lenormand.

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 the many other Lenormand draw tools (grand_tableau, three_card, line_of_five, relationship, 9_card_square). The only context offered is a group tag and credit cost, which is pricing metadata rather than usage guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds billing context (10 credits, Tier 1), which the agent cannot get from annotations. It says nothing about randomization, seeding, or what the layout output looks like, but with annotations and an output schema present, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Front-loaded single line of substance, with group and cost tags on separate lines. Nothing is padded, though the tag lines occupy real estate for little semantic value beyond cost.

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 format is not the description's burden, and the title plus card count make the spread self-explanatory. Still, with 5 parameters at low coverage and no usage or draw-mechanics context, the definition is only minimally complete.

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% across 5 parameters, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It does not explain seed, fields, precision, or allowReversed; 'every card and house used' only loosely hints that reversals may apply. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 action and scope: 'Full 36-card layout: every card and house used.' This distinguishes it from the smaller spreads among siblings (three_card, line_of_five, 9_card_square) by naming the full-deck scope. It never explicitly frames itself as a spread variant versus those siblings, though the card count does the differentiating work.

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 and no alternatives named. The agent is left to infer that this is the heaviest Lenormand spread versus draw_three_card or draw_9_card_square, and there is no hint about prerequisites or when a smaller spread would be preferable.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the credit cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the spread group, which is useful operational context, but says nothing about randomization, seeding, or reversed cards.

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 line plus metadata tags. Nothing wasted, though the tags occupy space that could have carried usage or parameter guidance.

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 draw tool with three undocumented inputs and many sibling spreads, the description leaves the agent without enough to select or configure the call correctly.

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 40%; only `fields` and `precision` are documented in the schema. The domain-critical parameters `seed`, `question`, and `allowReversed` have no schema description and no mention in the tool description, so their behavior is unexplained.

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 the resource ('Five-card linear story spread') and the card count does implicitly differentiate it from the sibling three-card, nine-card-square and grand-tableau draws. However, there is no verb ('draw'), and the description never names the alternatives it is distinguished from, so the agent must infer the routing.

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, when-not, or alternative guidance. A crowded sibling set of Lenormand draws (three_card, 9_card_square, grand_tableau, relationship, celtic_cross) offers no clue which spread to pick.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the cost context ('10 credits, Tier 1'), which is genuinely useful meta-info but not behavioral detail about the draw itself (e.g., whether allowReversed alters output, whether seed reproducibility matters).

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded, with the substantive purpose stated first. The bracket tags (Group, Cost) are boilerplate but carry real information. It leans toward under-specification rather than verbosity, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

Given five parameters, four of which are undocumented, and no usage routing against ~15 sibling draw tools, the description is too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the missing parameter meaning and absence of draw-selection guidance leave real 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 coverage is 40%: only 'fields' and 'precision' are described in the schema, while 'seed', 'question', and 'allowReversed' have no documentation. The description adds nothing about any parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap — notably silent on whether 'question' shapes the reading or what 'allowReversed' defaults to.

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 spread size and topic ('7-card relationship dynamics'), which adds specificity beyond the tool name and distinguishes it from siblings like draw_three_card and draw_grand_tableau. However, it is a noun fragment rather than a stated action, so the actual draw operation is only implied by the tool name.

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 guidance on when to choose this spread over the many other Lenormand and tarot draw tools (three-card, line-of-five, nine-card square, grand tableau). No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of when a relationship question warrants this seven-card spread.

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

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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds only domain framing ('fixed houses'), giving no indication that this is a static reference list with no input-dependent variation beyond the schema params.

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 with the group/cost tags after it. Nothing is wasted, though it is so terse that the metadata tags carry much of the informational weight.

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 needn't be described, and annotations cover safety. However, for a reference tool that is presumably consumed together with the Grand Tableau draw tool, the description omits any relational context an agent would need to chain them.

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 100% and both optional params (fields, precision) are fully explained in the schema. The description adds nothing about them, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific resource (the 36 fixed houses) and names the domain use case (Grand Tableau interpretation), which distinguishes it from the drawing tools like draw_grand_tableau and the card reference tool. The verb is implicit ('returns/lists'), so it stops short of a full 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?

The phrase 'for Grand Tableau interpretation' implies when the tool is relevant, but it never states when-not to use it or names an alternative sibling (e.g. the spread-drawing tools that consume these houses). Usage must be inferred.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds cost transparency (10 credits, Tier 1) and the group tag, which is genuinely useful and beyond structured data, but says nothing about how the birth card is derived or what makes the Greer method distinct.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded: the purpose leads and the metadata tags follow. Nothing is redundant, though the single fragment is arguably under-specified rather than optimized for concision.

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 no explanation, and the tool's mutation-free nature is covered by annotations. What is missing is the meaning of the inputs/output: whether `date` is a birth date and how the Greer birth card is calculated, leaving the agent to guess at intent.

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 67%: `fields` and `precision` are documented in the schema, while the required `date` carries only a pattern and no semantic explanation. The description contributes nothing about parameters, so this is the baseline case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the specific resource (birth card), the calculation method (Greer), and the deck (Marseille), which implicitly separates it from the parallel rider_waite_birth_card sibling. It lacks a verb (compute/generate) and never names an alternative explicitly, but the resource is unmistakable.

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 prerequisites, and no routing to the many sibling tarot tools (e.g. astroway_tarot_marseille_year_card or astroway_tarot_rider_waite_birth_card). The agent must infer selection criteria from the name alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered without description help. The description adds content conventions (deck size, trump numbering, pip interpretation) that are useful interpretation context but not behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or return shape — and with an output schema present, the return format need not be repeated here.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the highest-value fact (78-card Marseille deck) and the numbering caveat that most affects interpretation. The trailing [Group:]/[Cost:] tags are boilerplate metadata rather than description prose, so the size is well judged.

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?

With annotations covering safety, a full output schema covering the return payload, and 100% parameter documentation, the description only needs to establish scope and tradition — which it does via the 78-card count and Justice/Strength swap note. Only the lack of explicit sibling differentiation keeps it from being fully complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The two parameters (fields, precision) are generic compact-mode controls that the description does not touch at all; it neither clarifies nor obscures them, and the schema already carries the semantics.

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 identifies the resource precisely (the full 78-card Marseille deck) and adds distinguishing interpretive conventions — Justice=8, Strength=11, pip minors read by number+suit — which separate it from the Rider-Waite lineage. It never explicitly contrasts with nearby siblings like astroway_tarot_marseille_majors or astroway_tarot_marseille_cards_slug, so the agent must infer scope from '78-card' alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: stating '78-card' signals a full-deck reference lookup as opposed to the majors-only or slug-lookup siblings, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or named alternative. The agent can infer intent, but nothing routes it away from cards_slug if slug-keyed access was actually wanted.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful piece of non-annotation context: the cost note ('see your plan — endpoint not in the public credit manifest'). It says nothing about pagination or payload shape, though the output schema exists.

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 followed by two compact metadata lines; nothing is padded. The bracketed group/cost lines are boilerplate but short and informative.

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?

With full annotations, a complete input schema and an output schema, the safety and return-shape burdens are carried elsewhere. The remaining gap is routing guidance versus the sibling card-listing tool, which the description does not close.

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 100% and every parameter (slug, fields, precision) is already documented with format hints in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 (lookup), a specific resource (single Marseille card) and the key (slug), which is enough to separate it from the plural sibling astroway_tarot_marseille_cards. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so it stops short of a 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 guidance and no alternative is named. The contrast with astroway_tarot_marseille_cards is only implicit in the word 'Single', leaving the agent to infer when a card-by-slug lookup is preferable to listing cards.

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

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 adds the cost/tier metadata (10 credits, Tier 1), which is genuinely useful pre-call information, but says nothing about whether a seed makes the draw deterministic or how reversed cards are handled.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded with the core noun phrase first, then metadata tags. Nothing is padded, though the brevity is arguably under-specification rather than discipline.

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 5-parameter tool with 40% schema coverage and no usage guidance, this is thin. The presence of an output schema excuses it from describing return values, but the missing parameter docs and the absent distinction from sibling draw/clarify tools leave real 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 coverage is only 40%: seed, question and allowReversed have no schema description, and the description adds no meaning for any parameter. With sub-50% coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not — notably it never explains that `question` is the prompt being clarified.

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 deliverable (a single clarifying card) within the Marseille tarot group, but the verb is implicit and it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like astroway_tarot_marseille_draw_single or astroway_tarot_rider_waite_clarify. An agent can infer the resource but not why this differs from a plain single-card draw.

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 at all. Nothing states that this is meant to be drawn after a prior reading to resolve ambiguity, or how it relates to draw_single / draw_three_card. The agent is left to guess the intent from the name alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and determinism profile is largely covered. 'Based on date seed' reinforces the idempotent behavior, and the tier cost is disclosed, but nothing is said about what the card output contains or whether the date defaults to today.

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 operative sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, with the group/cost metadata clearly boxed off. It is tight to the point of being sparse, but nothing is redundant.

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 described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is the optional-date default behavior and any differentiation from the close tarot siblings, which an agent selecting among ~40 tarot tools would benefit from.

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 67%: fields and precision are well documented in the schema, while date carries only a regex pattern and no description. 'Based on date seed' implies the date drives the result but does not explain the default when omitted (0 required params) or the expected date format beyond the schema pattern. Baseline 3 is appropriate given moderate coverage.

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 (Marseille daily card) and the mechanism ('based on date seed'), which distinguishes it from the random draw_* siblings. It does not, however, name an alternative sibling explicitly or clarify how it differs from astroway_tarot_marseille_draw_single.

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 mention of context for a daily card versus a spread, and no reference to the many tarot siblings such as draw_single or the Rider-Waite/Lenormand daily variants. The only added context is group and cost metadata.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one genuine addition is the cost metadata (10 credits, Tier 1), which matters for agent budgeting. It still says nothing about how seeding works, whether the spread is deterministic, or whether a question is required to get a meaningful reading.

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?

Front-loaded and free of filler: the spread definition comes first, with group and cost as compact bracketed metadata. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 5-parameter divination tool, the definition is incomplete: no explanation of the question/seed/allowReversed semantics, no usage context, and no note that all parameters are optional and the spread can be drawn cold. The output schema does relieve it of explaining return values, but the remaining gaps are substantial.

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 in the schema but 'seed', 'question' and 'allowReversed' are bare. The description contributes zero parameter meaning, so it does nothing to compensate for the undocumented half. An agent cannot tell from either source what 'question' does or how 'seed' affects reproducibility.

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 fragment '4-card career spread' identifies the resource and the deck variant via the [Group: Tarot: Marseille] tag, and adds the card count beyond the title 'Marseille: Career'. However there is no verb ('draw', 'deal') and no explicit differentiation from astroway_tarot_rider_waite_draw_career or the other Marseille spreads (love, spiritual, decision) — the agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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 at all: nothing says when to pick a career spread over draw_three_card or draw_celtic_cross, when Marseille is preferred over Rider-Waite, or whether the caller should supply a question. The only selection signal is the tool name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior context by disclosing the 10-credit cost and that the spread is 'adapted' rather than canonical, but it says nothing about how seed drives determinism or what allowReversed does.

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 definition is two short lines, front-loading the spread and style before the metadata tags. Nothing is padded, though the brevity reflects missing content rather than tight editing.

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 described, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, with 5 parameters at 40% coverage and no usage guidance, the definition is too thin for an agent to invoke it confidently versus the numerous sibling tarot draws.

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 in the schema, and fields/precision are. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered three, leaving core inputs like the question text and reversed-card behavior unexplained.

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 identifies a specific spread (10-card Celtic Cross) and its interpretive style (Marseille pip-style), so an agent knows exactly what reading is produced. It does not differentiate from the many sibling draw tools (e.g. astroway_tarot_rider_waite_draw_celtic_cross, astroway_tarot_marseille_draw_cross, astroway_lnd_celtic_cross_lenormand), which is why it falls 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 statement of when to choose this spread over a sibling such as draw_cross, draw_seven_card, or the Rider-Waite Celtic Cross. The name implies a draw action but the description offers no usage context or exclusions.

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

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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the credit cost (10 credits, Tier 1), which is genuinely useful for budgeting but thin. No return format or guaranteed-verdict behavior is described, though an output schema exists.

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 short line, front-loaded with the tool's function; the bracketed group/cost metadata is compact. No wasted prose, though the brevity is partly because so little is said.

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?

The output schema relieves the description of explaining return values, and annotations cover safety. But with three of five parameters undocumented and no usage context, the definition is not complete enough for confidently invoking a decision tool inside a large tarot family.

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?

Five parameters at only 40% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. In particular, 'question', 'seed', and 'allowReversed' are undocumented in both places, so the description does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap on a decision tool where the question input is central.

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 outcome: a single-card yes/no draw that produces a verdict. That distinguishes it from the generic astroway_tarot_marseille_draw_single and from spread tools, though it doesn't name any sibling directly. Clear verb-and-resource content without explicit sibling differentiation.

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, no mention of alternatives, no exclusions. The description is essentially a title plus cost metadata, leaving the agent to infer that 'decision' means a binary question should be supplied.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the credit cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the spread composition; it does not explain seed determinism, how allowReversed affects the reading, or whether a question is required.

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?

Two compact sentences plus group/cost tags, front-loaded with the spread identity. Nothing is padded, though the group and cost metadata sit after the substantive content rather than being integrated.

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 described, and all parameters are optional. The description covers the spread's shape and cost, but omits selection guidance against sibling draws and any parameter behavior, leaving modest gaps for a paid draw tool.

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 40% (seed, fields, precision documented; question and allowReversed undocumented), and the description adds nothing about any of the five parameters — not their format, defaults, or effect. With low coverage the description should compensate but does not.

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 — a 6-card Hero's Journey spread with its exact positions (Hero / Objective / two Obstacles / Key / Resolution) and cites its source (Jodorowsky/Costa). That is enough to distinguish it from the many other Marseille draw siblings (cross, decision, love, seven_card, etc.) by spread type, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 is given. It does not say which question types or situations call for the Hero's Journey spread rather than, say, draw_decision or draw_celtic_cross, nor any prerequisites. Usage is only faintly implied by the spread's name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information — a 10-credit Tier 1 cost — which matters for a paid draw. It does not disclose whether the draw is deterministic from seed, how allowReversed affects output, or how the question influences the spread.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose with structured Group/Cost tags; nothing is padded. It is arguably too terse, but every element present earns its place.

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 needn't be explained, but for a 5-parameter paid tool the description omits the role of question (a 500-char love question), seed determinism, and reversal handling. Cost is the only substantive addition.

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 40% (only fields and precision are documented), below the 50% threshold, so the description must compensate — and it says nothing about seed, question, or allowReversed. The description adds zero parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 5-card Marseille love/connection spread — with the card count and topic that separate it from draw_career, draw_spiritual, and draw_seven_card. It never explicitly names a sibling or says what it produces beyond the spread, so it falls short of a 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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. With sibling love-oriented tools such as tarot_rider_waite_draw_love_triangle, tarot_lenormand_draw_relationship, and relational_match_score in the catalog, an agent gets no basis for choosing this tool over them.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context – a 10-credit Tier 1 cost and the Marseille group – but says nothing about what the draw returns (e.g. reversed-card handling given allowReversed defaults true) or whether a question is required.

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 identity, with cost/group in a scannable bracketed block. However, the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness – nothing is wasted, but too little is said.

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 needn't be explained, but for a 5-parameter tool at 40% schema coverage the description leaves the agent without when-to-use direction, parameter meaning, or spread-position context. The cost note is the only content beyond the label.

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% (only 'fields' and 'precision' are documented; seed, question and allowReversed are not), so the description must compensate and does not. It mentions no parameter at all – not the question text, the seed for reproducibility, or the meaning of allowReversed.

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, recognizable artifact – a '7-card pyramid spread' – which together with the tool name tells the agent this draws a seven-card Marseille tarot spread. It is clear about the resource produced, but offers no differentiation from the many other Marseille draw siblings (celtic cross, three-card, cross, love, etc.).

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 guidance on when to choose this spread over alternatives like astroway_tarot_marseille_draw_celtic_cross or draw_three_card, nor any prerequisite or question-context advice. The only supplementary text is group/cost metadata, not usage guidance.

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

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

The annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the safety burden is lifted. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: it is a 10-credit Tier 1 operation in the Tarot: Marseille group. It says nothing about how reversed cards behave, how the seed affects reproducibility, or what a draw returns.

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 lean and front-loaded: the purpose sentence leads, metadata follows. Nothing is padded, though the brevity comes at the cost of the guidance and parameter detail noted elsewhere.

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 cost/group metadata is present. But with 5 parameters, 0 required, 40% schema coverage, and undocumented `question`/`allowReversed`/`seed`, the description leaves an agent guessing about the core invocation inputs for a divination draw.

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 in the schema, but `seed`, `question`, and `allowReversed` are bare. The description supplies no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a 5-parameter tool.

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 (draw) and resource (single card) qualified by deck (Marseille), which does distinguish it from siblings like draw_three_card, draw_celtic_cross, and the Rider-Waite single draw. It stops short of explicitly framing the contrast, relying on the name and deck qualifier to do the differentiation work.

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 conditions or prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling spreads (three-card, Celtic Cross, love, career) or the equivalent Rider-Waite single draw. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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

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 structurally. The description adds genuinely useful operational context – the 10-credit Tier 1 cost and the Tarot: Marseille grouping – but says nothing about determinism via `seed` or how `allowReversed` changes the draw.

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?

Front-loaded and efficient – the spread identity comes first, with cost and grouping as compact bracketed metadata. Nothing is padded, though it is arguably under-specified rather than tight.

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 described, but a 5-parameter divination tool with zero required parameters and 40% coverage leaves the agent guessing about `question`, `seed` and `allowReversed`. For a draw tool whose whole purpose is generating a reading, this is a real gap.

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 carry no descriptions), so the description is expected to compensate and does not. It mentions '4-card' but never explains that `question` frames the reading, what `seed` does for reproducibility, or what `allowReversed` controls.

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 artifact – a 4-card spiritual development spread – which is more precise than a bare restatement of the name. It implicitly separates this from the career/love/decision draws in the sibling set by naming the spread's intent, though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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 prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many sibling Marseille draws (draw_cross, draw_hero, draw_seven_card, etc.). The agent must infer from the spread name alone whether this is the right draw for a given request.

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

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 adds the pricing behavior ('[Cost: 10 credits (Tier 1)]'), which is genuinely useful context not present in structured fields, but says nothing about the draw semantics (card selection, reversals, seeding) beyond the layout.

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?

Two short lines, layout stated first, metadata tags after. Nothing is wasted, though the sparse content borders on under-specification rather than disciplined brevity.

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 priced draw tool with five parameters (three undocumented), the description omits how the question and seed affect the draw and how reversed cards are handled, leaving an agent under-informed.

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% — seed, question and allowReversed have no schema descriptions. The 500-char question cap, integer seed bounds, and default-reversed behavior are undocumented in both schema and description, so the description fails to compensate for the 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 a specific spread layout ('Past / Present / Future three-card spread'), which tells an agent exactly what divination result to expect. It does not distinguish itself from sibling Marseille spreads like seven_card, celtic_cross, or cross, so an agent must infer the difference from the tool name alone.

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 guidance on when to choose this three-card spread over the many sibling spreads (single, seven_card, celtic_cross, career, love, decision). The only routing signal is the group tag '[Group: Tarot: Marseille]'. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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

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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful operational fact the annotations do not carry: the 10-credit (Tier 1) cost. It still says nothing about whether the response is a static reference list or a draw, but with annotations doing the heavy lifting a 3 is apt.

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?

Extremely tight and front-loaded: the resource is stated first, then group and cost metadata. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity comes at the cost of omitting any disambiguating context.

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 described. However, with a large family of Marseille tarot siblings, the definition is incomplete on the one thing that matters most here: how this reference lookup differs from marseille_cards, cards_slug, and the draw_* tools.

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?

Both parameters (fields, precision) are optional compact-mode controls with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains them fully. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the baseline-3 case when schema coverage is high.

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 22 Major Arcana) scoped to the Marseille deck, so an agent knows this returns that fixed subset rather than the full deck. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as astroway_tarot_marseille_cards or astroway_tarot_marseille_cards_slug, so the agent must infer the boundary from the names alone.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. Given near-identical siblings (marseille_cards, marseille_cards_slug, rider_waite_majors), the description should say when to pick the Marseille majors lookup versus the full card list, but it offers nothing.

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

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context in the cost/tier line ('10 credits (Tier 1)'), but says nothing about the shape or size of the returned spread list, which is the main behavioral unknown.

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 sentence plus two minimal metadata lines, with the resource stated first. It is compact and front-loaded; only slight credit is withheld because the metadata lines consume space without aiding tool selection.

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 read-only listing tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the essential purpose is conveyed. What is missing is any routing signal relative to astroway_tarot_marseille_spreads_slug and the other Marseille spread/draw tools in the sibling set.

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 schema itself as generic compact-mode controls. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 for a well-documented schema is appropriate.

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 (Marseille spreads) and verb (list), and even calls out a notable member (Jodorowsky cross). It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the obvious sibling astroway_tarot_marseille_spreads_slug, so an agent must infer the difference from the name alone.

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 mention of the slug-based alternative, and no stated preconditions. The only context is the '[Group: Tarot: Marseille]' tag, which is taxonomy rather than usage direction.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral note: the cost is opaque/not in the public credit manifest, which warns the agent not to assume pricing. It adds nothing about response shape, but an output schema exists to cover 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?

One short sentence followed by two bracketed metadata tags; nothing is wasted and the core purpose is front-loaded. Slightly terse rather than padded, which is the right direction.

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 by-slug lookup with a full output schema and annotation coverage, the description plus structured fields are nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation against `astroway_tarot_marseille_spreads` and `astroway_tarot_rider_waite_spreads_slug`, which the description does not address.

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 100%: the `slug` format (lowercase, hyphenated), the compact `fields` paths, and `precision` rounding are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb-ish noun phrase: it returns the definition of a single Marseille spread. Combined with the title and the `slug` parameter, an agent can infer it is a by-slug lookup. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling `astroway_tarot_marseille_spreads` (the list variant), so the intended scope is only implied by the `_slug` suffix.

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 at all. The description does not say to call this once a spread slug is known, nor does it point to `astroway_tarot_marseille_spreads` as the way to discover valid slugs. The agent must infer the workflow from naming conventions alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds the 10-credit cost and group tier, which is genuinely useful for an agent budgeting calls, but says nothing about what the draw produces or whether the question parameter affects randomness.

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 text is short and front-loads the purpose, but the second block is pure metadata and the first sentence is too thin to be considered efficient rather than under-specified.

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 no explanation, but for a tool embedded in a huge tarot family the description leaves purpose, selection criteria, and parameter meaning unresolved. It is not complete enough to call correctly without further exploration.

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%, and the description explains none of the 5 parameters (seed, question, fields, precision, allowReversed). With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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?

"Single timing card" identifies a resource (one tarot card) and an implied purpose (timing questions), but offers no verb and no differentiation from siblings such as astroway_tarot_marseille_draw_single or astroway_tarot_rider_waite_timing. An agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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 guidance on when to pick this over the many sibling draws (draw_single, draw_decision, draw_career) or over rider_waite_timing. The only extra context is group and credit-cost metadata, which does not help selection.

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

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 structurally. The description adds only the 'Greer method' label and says nothing about determinism, required inputs' semantics, or what the computed card represents. With the annotation bar lowered, this still contributes almost no behavioral context.

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 text is short and front-loaded with no filler sentences, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. Two of the three lines are bracketed metadata tags that consume space without informing invocation.

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 described. But for a tool with two required, undocumented parameters sitting among many near-duplicate siblings, the description omits what a year card is, when to prefer it over the Rider-Waite variant or the birth card, and what date/year should represent. It is not complete enough for reliable selection.

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 50%: 'date' and 'year' have no descriptions at all, and the description supplies no compensating meaning (e.g., whose birth date, or why both a date and a year are required). It does not explain how the two required parameters combine to produce a year card. The 'fields'/'precision' parameters are documented in-schema only.

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 and methodology ('Year card per Greer method'), which adds a differentiating detail beyond the title. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, and it does nothing to distinguish this from near-identical siblings such as astroway_tarot_rider_waite_year_card or astroway_tarot_marseille_birth_card. An agent must infer that this is the Marseille-deck computation.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The bracketed group and cost tags are billing metadata, not usage guidance. Given the enormous sibling set with several overlapping 'year card' and 'birth card' variants, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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