Lenormand: Pair Combination

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the description's additions are the interesting part: it discloses that both orderings are returned plus a combined tone, and that content is generated from authored per-card phrases rather than a copied pair table. The metadata block also surfaces cost (10 credits) and the endpoint, which annotations do not.

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?

Three tight sentences lead with what the tool does and why order matters, with no filler. The bracketed metadata block is templated but each line (group, endpoint, required, cost) carries practical information an agent can act on.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, annotations and full schema coverage, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing: input ordering is explained, output shape is previewed, and cost is disclosed. Return-value detail is correctly delegated to the output schema.

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 gives the slug format and an example. The description nonetheless adds real semantics beyond it by explaining that position one is the subject and position two the modifier, making the ordering constraint meaningful rather than a bare "reading order" hint.

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?

"Reads two Lenormand cards as a pair" gives a specific verb (reads) and resource (two Lenormand cards), and the subject/predicate framing distinguishes it from multi-card draws like three-card or line-of-five. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from card count alone.

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 the two-card constraint rather than stated: the agent can infer this is for pairwise card interaction, not full spreads. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use clause and no named alternative for single-card or larger-spread readings.

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