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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context — endpoint and a 10-credit Tier 1 cost — but says nothing about how the verdict is produced, whether the draw is deterministic given a seed, or what a 'verdict' contains.

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 lines. Nothing is padded or redundant, though the group/endpoint/cost block is administrative rather than descriptive and could arguably be trimmed.

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-value explanation is not required, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a 6-parameter tool with half its parameters undocumented and no usage routing among ~15 Marseille draw siblings, the definition is only minimally complete.

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 zero parameter meaning. It does not even mention that a `question` is expected, despite the tool being framed as a question-answering draw, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 concrete verb+resource and outcome: a single-card draw that yields a yes/no answer with a verdict. This separates it from the bare astroway_tarot_marseille_draw_single, though it never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 when a yes/no decision draw is preferable to draw_single, draw_cross, or the Rider-Waite equivalent, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the title and one-line summary.

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