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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the cost disclosure (10 credits, Tier 1), which is genuinely useful call-time context. It does not say anything about the random draw / seed behavior or whether repeated calls with the same seed yield the same cards.

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?

One short front-loaded sentence followed by two bracketed metadata tags — no filler. It is efficiently sized, though the extreme brevity is arguably under-specification rather than tight writing.

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 cover the safety profile. But for a 5-parameter tool the description says nothing about how to shape a reading prompt or what allowReversed/seed do, leaving key invocation decisions to guesswork.

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% (only 'fields' and 'precision' are documented), and the description adds nothing about the five parameters — notably 'question' (a 500-char prompt that is clearly the semantic core of a spiritual reading) and 'allowReversed'. The description 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 names a concrete artifact — a 5-card spiritual development spread — so an agent knows exactly what comes back. However, it never uses an action verb and doesn't differentiate this draw from the many sibling spreads (celtic cross, three-card, chakra, shadow work) beyond the 'spiritual development' theme.

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 indication of which sibling spread to pick instead, and no mention of when a user should supply a question. The agent must infer the use case purely from the spread's name.

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