Lenormand: All Cards

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the cost tier (10 credits) and endpoint, which is useful context, but says nothing about what the response contains or how the 36 cards are ordered.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded, with no wasted prose. The bracketed metadata lines are compact and scannable, though they occupy most of the text relative to the single descriptive phrase.

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?

A zero-parameter read with an output schema, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. However, given an enormous Lenormand/Tarot sibling set, the definition does not do enough to establish when this catalog call is the right choice.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No misleading parameter hints are present.

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 the resource ('36-card Lenormand oracle deck') but supplies no verb, so it is unclear whether the tool lists all 36 cards, returns deck metadata, or draws cards. It also fails to differentiate itself from close siblings such as astroway_tarot_lenormand_cards_slug and astroway_tarot_decks.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus the many Lenormand draw tools or the per-slug card lookup. The agent must infer that this is a reference/catalog call from the name alone.

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