Marseille: Career

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 context not in annotations — a cost of 10 credits (Tier 1) and the POST endpoint — but says nothing about what the draw returns, whether results are random versus seeded, or how the four cards are positioned.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence followed by compact bracketed metadata. Nothing is padded or redundant, though the metadata lines add modest value relative to space.

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, and annotations cover safety. However, with three of four parameters undocumented and no explanation of what a '4-card career spread' positions mean or whether the draw is deterministic given a seed, an agent lacks enough 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% (only 'art' is documented, and only by pointing to another endpoint), while seed, question, and allowReversed are completely undescribed. The description does not compensate for this gap at all — it never mentions seeding for reproducibility, the question field, or reversing.

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?

"4-card career spread" states a specific verb (draw), deck (implied Marseille by name/group), and domain (career), which distinguishes it from draw_love/draw_three_card and from the Rider-Waite career sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 about when to choose this career spread over Marseille draw_three_card, draw_decision, or the Rider-Waite career draw, and no preconditions or exclusions are stated. The brick tags (group, endpoint, cost) are metadata, not usage guidance.

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