Lenormand: Celtic Cross

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely useful operational context the annotations lack: the POST endpoint and a 10-credit (Tier 1) cost. It does not explain how seed interacts with idempotency or what the spread produces.

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?

It is short and front-loads the only substantive sentence. The bracketed Group/Endpoint/Cost lines are boilerplate, and the endpoint largely duplicates the tool name, leaving the whole definition thin rather than dense with value.

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 values need not be explained. But for a 4-parameter, 0-required tool at 25% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent without parameter meaning, without spread structure ('Adapted' unexplained), and without any routing guidance among dozens of tarot siblings.

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, while seed, question and allowReversed have no schema text. The description supplies nothing to compensate: no note on how seed affects the draw, whether question is required for a meaningful reading, or what allowReversed changes in a Lenormand context.

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 a specific spread (Celtic Cross) and a specific deck (Lenormand), which is enough to tell it apart from the Rider-Waite and Marseille Celtic Cross siblings. However, it restates the title almost verbatim with no action verb (draw/deal) and no explanation of what 'Adapted' means for this Lenormand variant, so purpose is inferred rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to pick this spread over the many Lenormand siblings (grand_tableau, 9_card_square, three_card, relationship, daily). No prerequisites, no question suitability, no exclusions, and no cost-vs-value tradeoff beyond a bare credit price.

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