Tarot Celtic Cross

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: unique non-repeating cards, cryptographic randomness, and the independent 50% reversal chance when allowed. This explains the non-idempotent nature and adds context the annotations alone do not provide.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and organized with clear labels (WORKFLOW, BEFORE, AFTER, INPUT CONTRACT). Every section adds decision-relevant information and avoids filler.

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 read-only tarot tool with an output schema and contract link, the description covers the spread layout, card uniqueness, randomness, reversal behavior, input constraints, and relation to sibling tools. No critical calling information is missing.

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 covers all parameters, but the description adds meaningful detail: 'allow_reversed' has an explicit 50% reversal rule, 'question' has a 500-character limit and an example, and the output/error contract is linked. 'response_format' is less described in prose but is fully covered by the schema enum.

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 names a specific tool ('Ten-card Celtic Cross spread') and states exactly what it does: draws 10 unique cards using cryptographic randomness and assigns them to the 10 classical positions. It also names sibling tools it should not be confused with, so an agent can select it correctly.

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 WORKFLOW section explicitly says when to use this tool standalone and when to follow the three-card spread, and the 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section lists three alternatives with their distinguishing use cases. This gives an agent explicit routing guidance.

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