Tarot MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get detailed information,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for safe use.

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 a single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the purpose efficiently. It could be more structured by including usage context, but it's appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every word earns its place, though it risks under-specification.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves 'detailed information.' It doesn't explain what information is returned, error handling, or dependencies. For a read operation with one parameter, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it correctly without guesswork.

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 has 100% description coverage, with 'spreadId' documented as 'ID of the spread.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to obtain the ID. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 states the action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific spread'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what kind of information is returned or differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_spreads' or 'perform_reading', which also involve spreads. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a spreadId), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_spreads' (for listing spreads) or 'perform_reading' (which might involve spreads). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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