Yes/no answer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output (yes/no/maybe value and upright meaning), and states coverage of all 78 cards. It does not mention error handling or input variations, but for a simple read-only lookup this is adequate.

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 primary purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains what it returns (value and justification) and its scope (all 78 cards). No additional context is needed.

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 schema already describes the single parameter 'name' as 'Card name' with 100% coverage. The description adds that it refers to a tarot card and covers all 78 cards, but does not specify formatting or exact name matching. This is sufficient given the schema coverage.

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 returns a yes/no/maybe value for a tarot card, specifically for yes-or-no readings, and includes upright meaning as justification. This is a specific verb+resource+scope and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_card_meaning, list_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?

The description gives clear context: this is for yes-or-no readings, implying it should be used when a binary or tri-state answer is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection among siblings.

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