daily_blessing

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

Goes meaningfully beyond the annotations: it discloses determinism keyed to (birth date, current date), the biasing of draw rarities by Cosmic Score tier, and the shape of the returned content. Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, but this adds probabilistic and determinism nuance they don't carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and the determinism and return-value sentences earn their place. The closing 'simplified version of the website' sentence is mild filler but does clarify scope.

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?

Return values are described (no output schema exists), and behavior is well covered, but for a four-parameter tool with low schema description coverage the description leaves the parameter model under-specified. Adequate but with a clear input-semantics gap.

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 coverage is only 25% over four parameters, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not. It references 'birth date' and 'current date' conceptually but never clarifies how the required year/month/day relate to the optional 'date' parameter, leaving a genuine ambiguity about which inputs form the birth date versus the draw date.

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 today's deity card from Mythsensus's 1,069-deity collection') and identifies what makes the tool distinctive (deterministic draw, tier biasing, returned fields). An agent can distinguish it from get_deity_lore or calculate_cosmic_score without opening another schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the description ('draw today's card', 'simplified version of the website daily blessing'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like calculate_cosmic_score or get_deity_lore, and no stated prerequisites.

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