Marseille: All Cards

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new context: the 10-credit Tier 1 cost and the endpoint. The deck-convention notes (Justice=8, Strength=11, pip minors by number+suit) also tell the agent how to read the returned data, which is useful beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short descriptive sentences plus a compact metadata block; every line carries information (deck size, numbering convention, cost). The deck-convention detail is front-loaded ahead of the boilerplate group/endpoint lines.

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?

A zero-param reference endpoint with a full annotation set and an output schema needs only to say which deck and how its cards are structured, which it does. The response format itself is covered by the output schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter confusion is possible.

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 identifies the resource precisely: the complete 78-card Marseille deck, with its numbering convention (Justice=8, Strength=11) and how pip minors are keyed. It distinguishes itself from the majors-only sibling implicitly by stating the deck is 78 cards, but it never names the sibling or spells out a verb like 'list'/'return the full catalog'.

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 statement of when to use this versus astroway_tarot_marseille_cards_slug (single-card lookup) or astroway_tarot_marseille_majors. An agent must infer from the deck size that this is a full-catalog fetch; no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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