Lenormand: Three-Card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured fields. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the exact endpoint, which helps with budgeting. It does not, however, explain how the draw behaves (e.g. whether it's random unless seeded, whether reversals are honored).

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 definition is short and front-loads the spread meaning, then stacks grouped metadata (group, endpoint, cost) which is scannable. Slightly wasteful in that half the text is bracketed boilerplate rather than substance, but it is not bloated.

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, but with four optional parameters at 25% coverage, no usage guidance, and a huge sibling set of near-identical draw tools, the definition leaves too much for the agent to infer. It is not complete enough to call this tool confidently versus its many neighbors.

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% and the description says nothing about the four parameters. Only 'art' has an inline description; 'seed', 'question' and 'allowReversed' are entirely undocumented. The description therefore does not compensate for the low coverage, leaving an agent guessing at seed determinism, question formatting, and reversal behavior.

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 line 'Subject / Situation / Outcome three-card line' names the spread and its positional structure, but never states the action ('draws three Lenormand cards') and doesn't distinguish this three-card draw from the many sibling three-card/line spreads (Rider-Waite three-card, Marseille three-card, line-of-five, relationship). The verb is inferred from the name rather than the description.

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?

No indication of when to choose this spread over the numerous Lenormand alternatives (daily, 9-card square, grand tableau, line-of-five, relationship) or what question types it suits. The 'Subject/Situation/Outcome' framing hints at past-present outcome but gives no exclusions or routing guidance.

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