Lenormand: 9-Card Square

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the credit cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and endpoint, which are genuinely useful beyond annotations, but it says nothing about reproducibility semantics (e.g., that seed fixes the draw) or what the call returns.

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?

A single front-loaded clause describing the layout, followed by compact metadata lines (group, endpoint, cost). No filler; if anything it is terse rather than wasteful.

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 return-value explanation isn't required, and annotations cover the safety profile. But for a tool with a free-text `question` and a `seed` for reproducibility — and no usage guidance against many sibling spreads — the description leaves the agent guessing on parameter intent and selection.

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 only 25% — only `art` is documented. The description adds no information about `seed`, `question`, or `allowReversed`, leaving half the behavioral surface undocumented in both schema and prose. With this low coverage the description should compensate and does not.

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 defines the spread geometry and positional meanings (rows past/present/future, columns mind/heart/body), which tells an agent what this draw produces and implicitly separates it from sibling Lenormand spreads like three_card or grand_tableau. It never states the verb 'draws 9 Lenormand cards' explicitly, relying on name/title for that, so it stops just short of a self-contained purpose statement.

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?

There is no statement of when to pick this spread over the many Lenormand alternatives (three-card, line of five, grand tableau, relationship, celtic cross), nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer selection from the grid shape alone.

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