Tarot Suit

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those: case-insensitive suit matching, local rejection of invalid values with MCP INVALID_PARAMS, and the structured array return shape. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but the existing annotations lower the burden and the description provides valuable validation context.

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-structured with front-loaded purpose, followed by workflow, input contract, sibling disambiguation, and documentation link. Every section earns its place and there is no filler or tautological repetition of the title.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, full schema coverage, and thorough annotations, the description is complete. It covers validation behavior, output shape, sibling differentiation, and points to a full docs URL for output and error contracts, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value for the suit parameter by enumerating the exact allowed values ('wands', 'cups', 'swords', 'pentacles'), specifying case-insensitivity, and clarifying the local rejection behavior — all beyond what the schema field description provides.

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 14 cards in a given Minor Arcana suit as a structured array.' It clearly scopes the tool to Minor Arcana suits and disambiguates it from the Major Arcana and full-catalogue siblings, so an agent can identify the tool's purpose precisely.

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 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section explicitly names asterwise_get_tarot_major_arcana and asterwise_get_tarot_cards and gives the distinguishing criteria (22 Major Arcana vs suit-based; 78-card catalogue). The WORKFLOW section states the tool is standalone, leaving no ambiguity about prerequisites or follow-up calls.

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