Get card meaning

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It reveals the content of the response and the data source (Rider-Waite-Smith), but does not address edge cases like unknown card names, case sensitivity, or error handling. No contradictions with annotations exist since none are provided.

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 action and resource, and lists the contents efficiently. Every sentence adds value with no repetitions or fluff.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description lists the major return fields and provides guidance on invocation, making it quite complete for a simple lookup. It misses only minor details about unknown names or formatting, so not a 5.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the single 'name' parameter with an example. The description adds only 'by name' which reinforces but does not meaningfully extend beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, 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 clearly states the tool retrieves the full meaning of a single tarot card, listing specific fields (upright/reversed meanings, contexts, etc.). The phrase 'a single tarot card' and 'by name' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_cards, search_cards, and draw_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?

Explicitly states 'Call this when you need the meaning of a specific card by name,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not provide exclusions or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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