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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine non-schema context: the group and the cost (10 credits, Tier 1), which matters for an agent managing a credit budget. It does not disclose whether the draw is random or reproducible via the seed parameter.

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?

Two lines, zero filler, and the identifying detail (card count and spread) is front-loaded ahead of the metadata tags. Appropriately sized for the amount of information it actually conveys.

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 not be explained, but with 5 parameters at 40% coverage and no usage guidance, the definition is thin. An agent gets no help on how the chakra positions map to cards or on the reproducibility/reversal semantics of seed and allowReversed.

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 40% (seed, question, and allowReversed carry no schema descriptions), and the description compensates for none of it. It says nothing about what seed does (reproducibility), what allowReversed controls, or what the question parameter is used for.

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 artifact — a 7-card chakra spread ordered Root to Crown — which cleanly separates it from the many other RWS draw_* siblings (celtic cross, horseshoe, love triangle, year ahead, etc.). It lacks an explicit verb (the 'draw' action is only implied by the tool name), but the resource and its scope are unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when a chakra spread is appropriate versus a different spread, and no reference to any sibling alternative. The agent must infer selection purely 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.