Marseille: Love

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld=false and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds the cost signal (10 credits, Tier 1) and the POST endpoint, which helps an agent budget and route, but it says nothing about how cards are chosen, deck defaults, or whether a question is required for a meaningful reading.

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-line headline with the spread size and theme front-loaded, followed by compact bracketed metadata. No filler, though the endpoint/group tags are administrative rather than interpretive.

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 the safety profile. However, for a 4-parameter tool with 25% schema coverage and many look-alike spread siblings, the description leaves the agent without enough to pick parameters or this tool 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 description coverage is only 25% — only 'art' is documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning for 'question', 'seed', or 'allowReversed' (default true), all of which materially change the reading. With low coverage, the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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+resource: a 5-card love/connection draw from the Marseille tarot deck. This clearly separates it from 'draw_career', 'draw_spiritual', or 'draw_decision' siblings, though it never distinguishes itself from cross-deck love spreads like 'astroway_tarot_rider_waite_draw_relationship' or the Lenormand relationship draw.

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?

Nothing says when to pick this spread over the other Marseille spreads (three_card, cross, seven_card, celtic_cross) or over the Rider-Waite/Lenormand relationship options. Only a group tag and endpoint are provided; the agent must infer suitability 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.