Marseille: Single Card

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context: cost (10 credits), endpoint, and group, which matter for budgeting and routing. It says nothing about how seed affects determinism or what a draw returns, but the output schema handles returns.

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?

Extremely tight and front-loaded: the core purpose leads, then bracketed metadata. No filler, though the bracketed blocks are administrative rather than semantic.

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 explained, and annotations cover safety. But with three undocumented parameters and no usage differentiation within a crowded Marseille sibling set, the definition is only minimally sufficient for correct invocation.

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' documented). The description adds no meaning for 'question', 'seed', or 'allowReversed' — notably seed's determinism role and allowReversed's effect on orientation are undisclosed, so the description fails to 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?

States a clear verb+resource: a single-card draw specifically from the Marseille deck. An agent can distinguish it from other Marseille draw variants (three_card, celtic_cross) by the 'single-card' scope, though it doesn't explicitly name siblings.

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 guidance on when to choose a single-card draw over the three-card, cross, or seven-card alternatives in the Marlseille family, nor any precondition or question intent. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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