Tarot MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Search') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or return format (e.g., whether it returns full card objects or just names). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource without unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., card objects, IDs, or summaries), how results are ordered, or any limitations (e.g., partial matches). For a search tool in a context with sibling tools, more guidance on output and behavior is needed to be fully helpful.

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 description mentions 'by keyword', which aligns with the single 'query' parameter, but adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema provides (schema coverage is 100%, with the schema description detailing that it 'searches names, keywords, and descriptions'). This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enrich parameter understanding further.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('tarot cards'), and specifies the search mechanism ('by keyword'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_all_cards' (which presumably lists all without filtering) and 'get_card_meaning' (which retrieves specific card details). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what aspects of cards are searched (though the schema clarifies this), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 scenarios like filtering cards for a reading versus getting a full list, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'list_all_cards' for broader queries or 'get_card_meaning' for detailed info. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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