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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the bar is low, and the description adds a genuinely actionable trait not present in structured fields: a 10-credit Tier 1 cost. It also exposes the underlying endpoint. It does not, however, disclose whether the draw is random or seeded/deterministic.

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?

Very tight and front-loaded: the spread definition leads, with group/endpoint/cost as clearly bracketed metadata. Nothing is wasted, though the bracketed scaffolding is boilerplate rather than tool-specific guidance.

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 no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. What remains missing is behavioral context around the draw itself (determinism via seed, whether a question is expected, reversed-card handling) for a 6-parameter tool with half its schema undocumented.

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, and precision are documented in-schema while seed, question, and allowReversed are not. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it does not compensate for the undocumented third of the parameter surface — notably the 'question' field an agent would likely need to fill.

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 action (draw) with the resource (Marseille Tarot) and the spread identity ('5-card love and connection spread'), which separates it from sibling draws like draw_career, draw_celtic_cross, or draw_single. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the topic+card-count combination is sufficient to disambiguate.

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 'love and connection' framing implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative (e.g., tarot_lenormand_draw_relationship, tarot_rider_waite_draw_love_triangle, or tarot_marseille_draw_cross). Usage is left to inference from the spread name.

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