Marseille: Daily Card

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful metadata not in annotations — endpoint path and a 10-credit (Tier 1) cost — but leaves 'based on date seed' unexplained (i.e., that the same date always yields the same card, and what timezone 'daily' resolves against).

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?

Short and front-loaded: the one substantive sentence comes first, followed by clearly delineated bracketed metadata. Nothing is redundant, though the terse style shades into under-specification rather than true economy.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover safety. Still missing for a 2-optional-param tool with no default fields in the schema: what happens if date is omitted, what art defaults to, and how far back/forward dates may go.

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 50%: 'art' is documented with examples in the schema, but 'date' has no description at all. The description says the card is 'based on date seed' but adds no clarity on format expectations, default behavior when date is omitted, or whether past/future dates are valid, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States the specific resource and scope: a daily Marseille tarot card derived from a date seed. An agent can tell it yields a single deterministic card for a given day, but the description never names or contrasts the obvious alternatives (astroway_tarot_marseille_draw_single, astroway_tarot_rider_waite_daily, astroway_tarot_lenormand_daily), so sibling selection is left to inference.

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 statement of how this differs from the other tarot daily/draw tools, and no note that 'date' lets you pull other days or that omission defaults to today. The agent must guess from the name alone.

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