Tarot Major Arcana

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds standalone behavior, output format implications, a documented error contract link, and the archetype context, going beyond what annotations alone provide without contradicting them.

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 well-organized and front-loaded with the core behavior. The WORKFLOW and DO NOT CONFUSE sections are useful, though the 'Required' label is inaccurate and the BEFORE/None/standalone wording is slightly redundant.

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 optional-parameter read tool, it covers scope, workflow, sibling alternatives, output/error contract, and is backed by an output schema. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the enum and default, so the description needed to add only nuance. Instead, it labels response_format as 'Required', which is misleading because the schema lists zero required parameters and provides a default. This adds confusion rather than meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns all 22 Major Arcana cards (The Fool through The World) as a structured array.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from asterwise_get_tarot_cards and asterwise_get_tarot_suit, making sibling differentiation immediate.

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 says 'BEFORE: None — standalone' and 'AFTER: asterwise_draw_tarot_cards — draw from this subset by filtering by arcana_type.' The 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section names the sibling tools that cover the full deck and suits, making the correct selection clear.

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