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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information — a 10-credit Tier 1 cost — which matters for a paid draw. It does not disclose whether the draw is deterministic from seed, how allowReversed affects output, or how the question influences the spread.

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 one-line purpose with structured Group/Cost tags; nothing is padded. It is arguably too terse, but every element present 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 needn't be explained, but for a 5-parameter paid tool the description omits the role of question (a 500-char love question), seed determinism, and reversal handling. Cost is the only substantive addition.

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 40% (only fields and precision are documented), below the 50% threshold, so the description must compensate — and it says nothing about seed, question, or allowReversed. The description adds zero parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 — a 5-card Marseille love/connection spread — with the card count and topic that separate it from draw_career, draw_spiritual, and draw_seven_card. It never explicitly names a sibling or says what it produces beyond the spread, so it falls short of a 5.

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 at all. With sibling love-oriented tools such as tarot_rider_waite_draw_love_triangle, tarot_lenormand_draw_relationship, and relational_match_score in the catalog, an agent gets no basis for choosing this tool over them.

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