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.