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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses a fixed three-card spread, the specific deck and interpretive tradition, presence of crisis-response safety boundaries, and a concrete rate limit (30 readings per client per day) plus FREE status. What it omits is any indication of what the response contains (raw card draws vs. prose interpretation), which matters for a tool with 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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is before moving to suitability, safety, and pricing. Each sentence carries information, though the deck/tradition clause and the FREE/pricing clause border on promotional framing that an agent doesn't strictly need.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation tool the description covers identity, suitability, safety posture, and cost/quota well. The notable gap is return shape — with no output schema, the agent gets no sense of whether it receives card names, positions, or interpretive text.

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?

There is a single parameter (question) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds nothing about question phrasing, length, or framing beyond the schema's minLength/maxLength constraints, so the 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource plus unusual specificity — a three-card Past/Present/Future spread from the Rider-Waite-Smith 1909 deck interpreted in the Waite tradition. That pins the tool down precisely, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with its siblings (consult_runes, consult_iching, etc.), so an agent must infer the division of labor from the deck/tradition detail alone.

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?

"Best for complex situations with many moving parts, hidden influences, and psychological depth" is clear positive guidance on when this tool is the right pick, implicitly comparative against sibling divination tools. However, it names no alternative and gives no when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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