Marseille: Tirage du Héros (Hero's Journey)

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 cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and source authenticity, but omits behavioral details like randomness/seeding and how the question parameter affects the draw, which matter for a tool with seed and allowReversed parameters.

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?

One sentence plus compact metadata; front-loads the spread name and card layout with no wasted words.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. However, with 4 parameters at 25% description coverage, the description should clarify seed/question/allowReversed usage; it leaves those gaps.

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% (only 'art' is described). The description adds no meaning for seed, question, or allowReversed, so it does not compensate for the low coverage.

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?

It names the specific spread (6-card Hero's Journey) and enumerates the card positions, which is more than a tautology. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling spread tools like draw_three_card or draw_celtic_cross, so an agent cannot immediately tell why to choose this one.

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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, no exclusions. The description only describes the spread; it does not help an agent choose between this and the many other Marseille draw tools.

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