Lenormand: Relationship

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the fixed 7-card spread size, which are real behavioral facts. It says nothing about whether the draw is deterministic given seed, whether a question is required, or how reversals affect the reading.

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 statement is one short front-loaded line with no waste, and the bracketed group/endpoint/cost metadata is compact and factual. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being a model of density.

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 a 4-parameter draw tool with 0 required params and three undocumented parameters needs more: what question does, whether seed makes the draw reproducible, and whether allowReversed defaults to reversed cards included are all unstated. For a paid (10-credit) generative draw, the description is too thin.

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 in the schema, while seed, question, and allowReversed have no description anywhere. The description offers zero parameter guidance, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap; notably the semantics of 'seed' (reproducibility) and 'allowReversed' (reversed Lenormand cards) are left entirely unexplained.

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 phrase '7-card relationship dynamics' names the specific spread size and subject, which meaningfully distinguishes it from sibling Lenormand draws (three-card, line of five, 9-card square, grand tableau, celtic cross). The verb 'draw' is only implied via the tool name rather than stated in the description, and 'dynamics' is slightly abstract, but an agent can still identify the resource and output.

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 over astroway_tarot_lenormand_draw_three_card, the Rider-Waite relationship draw, or relational/synastry tools. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no statement of what question types the 7-card layout suits.

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