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 covered. The description adds genuinely useful context absent from annotations — the cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the source/school of the spread (Jodorowsky/Costa). It says nothing, though, about how seed or allowReversed affect the reading.

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 core sentence is front-loaded with the spread nature and structure, followed by compact metadata lines. Nothing is wasted, though the bracket block is structured plumbing rather than explanatory content.

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 presence of an output schema means return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description is not required to carry those. It is still incomplete on the input side: the undocumented 'question' and 'allowReversed' parameters are central to how a draw is performed and remain unexplained anywhere.

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 only 50% — art, fields, and precision are documented, but seed, question, and allowReversed have no schema description. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, not even for the central 'question' input that a divination draw would obviously need explained, 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?

The description gives a specific spread concept (6-card Hero's Journey) and enumerates all positions (Hero / Objective / two Obstacles / Key / Resolution), so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling draw_* spreads (celtic_cross, love, career, decision), leaving the differentiation implicit in the name.

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 description contains no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no alternatives named. With roughly a dozen sibling spreads such as draw_celtic_cross, draw_cross, and draw_seven_card, the agent gets no help choosing this one over the others.

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