Lenormand: Line of Five

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 adds useful operational context in the form of endpoint and credit cost, but says nothing about randomness, seed behavior, reversal handling, or output characteristics.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words. The bracketed group, endpoint, and cost metadata are useful and compact, though the overall text is terse enough to feel under-specified rather than merely concise.

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 described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with four parameters and only 25% schema coverage, the description leaves too much unsaid about question, seed, and reversed-card behavior for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 only 25%, and the description does not explain the roles of seed, question, or allowReversed. The art parameter is documented in the schema, but the description does not compensate for the three undocumented parameters.

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 states a specific spread: a five-card linear story spread, which is enough to identify the Lenormand draw operation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling spreads such as three-card, nine-card square, grand tableau, or relationship, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. An agent must infer from the spread name alone whether a five-card line is appropriate versus a three-card or grand tableau spread.

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