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 genuinely useful operational context absent from annotations: cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the endpoint. It does not explain whether a seed makes the draw reproducible or how 'adapted' differs from the classic Celtic Cross 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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, followed by compact bracketed metadata for group, endpoint, and cost. No filler sentences, though the alias line is procedural rather than user-facing.

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/endpoint are covered. But for a draw tool with 0 required params and half its schema undocumented, the description never explains the question parameter or what 'adapted' Celtic Cross positions are produced, leaving an agent without enough to invoke it 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 coverage is only 50%, and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. Three parameters (seed, question, allowReversed) are undocumented in both places despite question being the semantically central input for a divination draw; the description should have compensated for the gap and 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?

Names the specific resource — an adapted Celtic Cross spread drawn with Lenormand cards — which separates it from the Marseille and Rider-Waite Celtic Cross siblings and locates it in the Lenormand family. No explicit verb ('draw'), but the action is unambiguous from the name and title pairing.

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 no guidance on when to choose this spread over the many other Lenormand draws (three-card, line-of-five, grand tableau, 9-card square) or over the Marseille/RWS Celtic Cross variants. The alias note tells the agent the canonical tool exists but not which to prefer or why.

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