Marseille: Single Spread

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context: the endpoint path and that cost is plan-dependent and absent from the public credit manifest. It does not cover what happens when the slug is unknown, but with annotations in place a 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose sentence comes first, then bracketed metadata in a consistent, scannable block. The '[Required: slug]' line is pure redundancy and the '[Group:]' tag duplicates the name prefix, minor waste in an otherwise tight definition.

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 the single parameter plus annotations cover the mechanics. What is missing is routing context in a namespace with several near-identical Marseille tarot tools; the description gives an agent no basis to prefer this over the list or draw endpoints.

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 single slug parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Spread slug, lowercase and hyphenated') at 100% coverage, so the description's '[Required: slug]' adds nothing beyond a required-marker already in the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries parameter meaning.

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?

The description states the resource precisely ('Definition of a single Marseille spread') and the GET endpoint makes clear it is a read/lookup of one spread by slug. It implicitly contrasts with the plural sibling astroway_tarot_marseille_spreads but never names it, so an agent must infer the single-vs-list distinction.

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 statement of when to call this tool versus the many nearby alternatives (astroway_tarot_marseille_spreads, astroway_tarot_marseille_draw_single, astroway_tarot_marseille_interpret). The '[Required: slug]' line is a schema restatement, not usage guidance.

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