Marseille: Seven-Card

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description's only real added value is the operational metadata: cost of 10 credits (Tier 1) and the POST endpoint. It says nothing about what the spread produces, whether the seed makes draws reproducible, or rate/credit implications beyond the flat price.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the spread comes first, then bracketed metadata. Nothing is padded, though the tag lines are boilerplate that could be structured fields rather than prose.

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 needn't be described, but with 3 of 4 parameters undocumented and no positioning against the dense Marseille/Lenormand/RWS draw tool family, the definition leaves real gaps for a caller picking a spread.

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% (just `art`), so the description needs to compensate for `seed`, `question`, and `allowReversed` — and it does not mention any of them. No meaning is added beyond the schema.

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?

"7-card pyramid spread" identifies the specific spread and, via the name, the act of drawing Marseille cards. But it never states a verb or says what the tool returns, and among ~15 sibling Marseille draw variants (three_card, celtic_cross, love, career, decision, hero, cross, single) it gives no cue for why the pyramid spread is the right 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance at all. The sibling list shows several overlapping draw tools of different shapes, and the description offers nothing to route an agent between them.

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