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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a cost caveat ('see your plan — endpoint not in the public credit manifest'), which is genuine behavioral context, though it is vague and non-actionable.

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 tightly worded sentence leads with the core payload, followed by short group/cost tags. Nothing is padded, though the bracketed metadata is boilerplate rather than substantive.

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?

For a simple reference-list lookup with an existing output schema and safety annotations, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. The main omission is routing versus the courts/numbers-adjacent siblings, which is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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 100%, so the meaning of n, fields, and precision is fully documented in the schema already. The description restates the 1-14 range but adds no new parameter detail; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a concrete retrieval: all Minor Arcana cards for a given number 1-14, with the Ace/King mapping spelled out. It implies exclusion of Majors, which helps separate it from astroway_tarot_rider_waite_majors. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling astroway_tarot_rider_waite_courts, which covers the same 11-14 range.

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 or naming of alternatives such as astroway_tarot_rider_waite_majors, astroway_tarot_rider_waite_courts, or astroway_tarot_rider_waite_suits_suit. The agent must infer routing from names alone.

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