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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely useful context that annotations do not carry: the cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the exact endpoint. It does not disclose auth requirements, whether the seed makes draws reproducible, or what the spread yields, so it is helpful 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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first line and the group/endpoint/cost tags are compact, non-redundant metadata. Nothing reads as filler. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, but every line 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 need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is spread semantics (what the four positions mean) and any hint of how seed/question/allowReversed affect the draw — for a divination tool whose value is in the reading, that is a real gap, though the structured fields carry much of the load.

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% — three of six parameters (seed, question, allowReversed) have no schema description, and the description adds nothing about any parameter. Critical semantics like whether `seed` makes the draw deterministic or what `question` influences are left entirely undocumented in both places. With half the parameters undocumented and no compensating text, this falls below the 3 baseline.

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 action and resource: a 4-card career spread drawn from the Marseille deck, which separates it from the many other Marseille spread variants (love, spiritual, decision, celtic cross, single). The card count and topic together give an agent a clear picture of the outcome. It stops short of full sibling differentiation because it never contrasts itself with the Rider-Waite career draw or explains the spread layout, 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 when-to-use guidance at all — no condition selecting this career spread over astroway_tarot_marseille_draw_three_card, draw_seven_card, or the Rider-Waite equivalent. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is for career questions. The meta tags give cost and endpoint but no usage direction.

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