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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the exact shape of each returned card (position, orientation, keywords, element) and the seed mechanism for reproducibility, which is valuable given idempotentHint=false and no output schema.

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?

Three short sentences with the action front-loaded, followed by return shape and the seed note in descending order of importance. No filler or redundant phrasing; every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. Minor gaps remain around spread-specific behavior (number of cards per spread, whether the question affects the draw), but nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents seed, spread, question and allow_reversed, including the full spread enum. The description restates the seed reproducibility semantics already present in the schema and adds nothing about how 'question' influences the draw or what card counts each spread yields, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Draw tarot cards') plus the selection mechanism ('using a chosen spread'), which is enough for an agent to identify the operation. It does not name or contrast any sibling, but no sibling in the list offers tarot drawing, so the name alone disambiguates.

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 phrase 'for a question using a chosen spread' implies the usage context, and all parameters are optional with defaults, so the tool can be called with no arguments. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when not to use it, and no pointer to related divination siblings such as check_compatibility or get_daily_cosmic_weather.

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