Draw cards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses key traits: 'distinct' cards (no repeats), 'optionally with reversals', and 'returning each card's full meaning'. It does not detail randomization mechanics, but for a simple draw tool it covers essential behavior.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and every sentence contributes value. The second sentence provides usage guidance without redundancy. This is appropriately concise.

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 tool with two parameters and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and return behavior. It mentions 'returning each card's full meaning' which indicates output content, and the 'reading spread' context clarifies typical use. Though no output schema exists, the description is adequate for this small tool.

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 100% (both parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that cards are 'distinct' (without replacement), which supplements the count parameter description, and 'optionally with reversals' maps directly to allow_reversed.

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 clearly states the tool randomly draws one or more distinct tarot cards from the full 78-card deck, optionally with reversals, and returns each card's full meaning. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_card_meaning (specific card lookup) and list_cards (listing all cards).

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 description explicitly provides a usage context: 'Use for generating a reading spread.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The purpose clarity already differentiates from siblings, so the guidance is sufficient albeit not exhaustive.

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