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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the credit cost (10 credits, Tier 1), which is genuinely useful for budgeting but thin. No return format or guaranteed-verdict behavior is described, though an output schema exists.

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 short line, front-loaded with the tool's function; the bracketed group/cost metadata is compact. No wasted prose, though the brevity is partly because so little is said.

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 relieves the description of explaining return values, and annotations cover safety. But with three of five parameters undocumented and no usage context, the definition is not complete enough for confidently invoking a decision tool inside a large tarot family.

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?

Five parameters at only 40% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. In particular, 'question', 'seed', and 'allowReversed' are undocumented in both places, so the description does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap on a decision tool where the question input is central.

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 outcome: a single-card yes/no draw that produces a verdict. That distinguishes it from the generic astroway_tarot_marseille_draw_single and from spread tools, though it doesn't name any sibling directly. Clear verb-and-resource content without explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, no exclusions. The description is essentially a title plus cost metadata, leaving the agent to infer that 'decision' means a binary question should be supplied.

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