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.