Tarot Spread Reading

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

The annotations already cover the safety profile: read-only, non-destructive, open-world, and non-idempotent. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by explaining the generated output composition (position readings, whole-spread synthesis, one piece of advice) and the cost of 100 credits. It does not discuss authentication or rate limits, but those are less central here.

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 and efficient: the first two sentences explain what the reading produces and what input it accepts. The bracketed metadata adds practical information such as endpoint, required parameter, and cost without bloating the prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values in detail, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the key required-input semantics, deck coverage, multilingual support, and cost. It could be more complete by explaining the optional spread and question parameters, but overall it is sufficient for calling the tool 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 very low at 17%, so the description carries substantial burden. It provides valuable semantics for the required cards parameter by allowing slugs or a drawn array from any draw response, and it mentions multi-language and the three deck types. However, it leaves the spread and question parameters undocumented, and only partially clarifies deck behavior.

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 a specific verb and resource: an AI reading of a tarot, Marseille, or Lenormand spread, including per-position readings, synthesis, and advice. It also clarifies the input shape by saying it takes card slugs or the drawn array from any draw response. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tarot interpretation tools, but the cross-deck AI-reading scope is clear.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Takes card slugs or the drawn array of any draw response,' which suggests it is used after drawing cards. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no instructions about choosing between this and deck-specific interpretation tools.

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