Lenormand: Grand Tableau

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

The annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context by disclosing the cost and endpoint, and by noting that every card and house is used, but it does not explain randomness, seed behavior, or reversal handling.

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?

The substantive description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The added group, endpoint, and cost metadata are not prose bloat, though they do slightly clutter the definition.

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?

The annotations and output schema reduce the burden, and the description conveys the core layout. However, for a multi-parameter tarot draw with several close siblings, it remains thin on usage guidance and parameter behavior.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for undocumented parameters such as seed, question, and allowReversed. Instead, it provides no parameter-level meaning beyond the structured schema, leaving most optional inputs without descriptive 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 clearly identifies the layout as a full 36-card Lenormand Grand Tableau where every card and house is used. It is specific enough to distinguish this from smaller Lenormand draw siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or use a direct verb.

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?

The description states the layout structure but gives no guidance on when to choose the Grand Tableau over sibling spreads such as the 9-card square, Celtic Cross Lenormand, or three-card draw. It also provides no exclusions or prerequisites.

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