Marseille: All Spreads

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information the annotations do not carry: a cost of 10 credits (Tier 1) and the underlying endpoint, which matters for budget-aware agents.

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 of purpose plus three bracketed metadata lines; nothing is padded. Front-loading is good, though the '[Group: ...]' line is largely restated by the tool name.

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 no-parameter, read-only listing endpoint with an output schema and complete annotations, the description covers what an agent must know to call it correctly. The only real omission is not naming the follow-up tool that consumes the returned spread identifiers.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline of 4 applies. The schema is empty and fully consistent with a pure listing call.

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 and resource ('List of all Marseille spreads') and even flags a notable member (Jodorowsky cross). It is distinguishably different from the sibling astroway_tarot_marseille_spreads_slug, which takes a slug, though the description never explicitly makes that contrast.

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 statement of when to use this versus the many nearby siblings (astroway_tarot_marseille_spreads_slug, astroway_tarot_marseille_draw_*, astroway_ai_interpret_tarot). The discovery-then-fetch relationship with spreads_slug is left entirely implicit for the agent to infer.

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