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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context – a 10-credit Tier 1 cost and the Marseille group – but says nothing about what the draw returns (e.g. reversed-card handling given allowReversed defaults true) or whether a question is required.

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 short and front-loaded with the spread identity, with cost/group in a scannable bracketed block. However, the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness – nothing is wasted, but too 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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but for a 5-parameter tool at 40% schema coverage the description leaves the agent without when-to-use direction, parameter meaning, or spread-position context. The cost note is the only content beyond the label.

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 40% (only 'fields' and 'precision' are documented; seed, question and allowReversed are not), so the description must compensate and does not. It mentions no parameter at all – not the question text, the seed for reproducibility, or the meaning of allowReversed.

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 names a specific, recognizable artifact – a '7-card pyramid spread' – which together with the tool name tells the agent this draws a seven-card Marseille tarot spread. It is clear about the resource produced, but offers no differentiation from the many other Marseille draw siblings (celtic cross, three-card, cross, love, etc.).

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 guidance on when to choose this spread over alternatives like astroway_tarot_marseille_draw_celtic_cross or draw_three_card, nor any prerequisite or question-context advice. The only supplementary text is group/cost metadata, not usage guidance.

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