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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's main added value is the 10-credit cost and endpoint. It says nothing about determinism from `seed`, reversal behavior, or response shape beyond the grid 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?

Very tight: the spread semantics are front-loaded in one sentence, followed by compact group/endpoint/cost metadata. Nothing is padded, though the three bracketed metadata lines could be trimmed to just the cost signal.

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 exists, so return structure needn't be explained, and the spread geometry is given. But with six parameters and half of them undocumented, plus no routing guidance among the many Lenormand draw siblings, the definition is only minimally sufficient for correct 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 50% (art, fields, precision documented; seed, question, allowReversed not), and the description adds no parameter meaning at all – no explanation of how `question` is used, what `seed` does for reproducibility, or whether `allowReversed` is meaningful for Lenormand, where reversals are traditionally atypical yet default to true.

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 defines the spread concretely – a three-by-three grid with row and column semantics – which, combined with the name 'draw_9_card_square', makes the operation and its output structure unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish this spread from sibling draws like grand_tableau, line_of_five, or three_card.

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 mention of alternative Lenormand spreads, despite many siblings (draw_relationship, draw_three_card, draw_grand_tableau). The grid dimensions hint at a situational overview across time and life domains, but that is left for the agent to infer.

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