Lenormand: Custom Line

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds genuinely new context: seeded draws mirroring the fixed spreads (reproducibility), plus endpoint and cost tier (10 credits). It does not state what happens when both positions and count are supplied.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence followed by compact bracketed metadata (group, endpoint, cost). Nothing is padded, though the group/endpoint lines are low-value for an agent already routing by name.

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 no explanation, and the core positions/count mutual-exclusion is covered. Still, three undocumented parameters (seed, question, allowReversed) leave an agent guessing on determinism controls and reversal behavior for a 6-parameter tool.

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 50%; the description usefully clarifies the positions-vs-count relationship ('count is number of cards when positions are not named'), which the schema only hints at. However, seed, question, and allowReversed carry no description in either place, so compensation is partial.

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?

Specific verb (draw), specific resource (Lenormand cards), and explicit scope (1-15 into named positions or by count), plus the qualifier 'custom' that separates it from the fixed-spread siblings like draw_line_of_five or draw_9_card_square.

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?

Implied usage is clear — use this when you want your own position names rather than a fixed spread — but no sibling is named and no when-not condition is stated outright. The agent must infer that the fixed-spread tools exist for standard layouts.

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