Marseille: Tirage Réduit (Jodorowsky Reduced Cross)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the 10-credit cost, the endpoint, and the fact that the 5th card is a numerological reduction—behavioral details not present in structured fields. It stops short of explaining seed/idempotency or reversal behavior.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence, with group/endpoint/cost as compact metadata tags. No wasted prose, though the bracketed metadata is slightly dense.

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?

For a draw tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is adequate: it conveys what the spread is and its cost. It falls short on parameter meaning and spread-selection guidance, leaving real gaps an agent would have to guess.

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?

With only 25% schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it says nothing about the four parameters (art, seed, question, allowReversed). The agent gets no meaning beyond what the schema already spells out, and half the parameters are undocumented in either location.

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 a specific verb (draw) and resource (a 5-card Marseille cross) and details the four positional archetypes plus a synthesis card, so the operation and output shape are legible. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like draw_three_card or draw_celtic_cross, but the '5-card cross' identity is distinctive enough.

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 indication of which alternative spread to pick over this one, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer selection from the toolbox alone.

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