RWS: Advice Card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context beyond that: the POST endpoint and a 10-credit (Tier 1) cost. It says nothing, however, about how the seed affects the draw or that a reversed card may be returned.

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, with no filler prose, so it is easy to scan. But the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than economy of expression, and the bracketed metadata lines are boilerplate repeated across tools.

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 not be explained, but with four parameters, 25% schema coverage, and no required fields, the agent still lacks what it needs about seed determinism, question handling, and reversed-card defaults. The definition does not fill that gap.

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), so the description carries the burden for seed, question, and allowReversed — and adds nothing. In particular, `seed` (determinism) and `allowReversed` are semantically important and undocumented in both places.

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?

"Single advice card" essentially restates the tool name and title ("RWS: Advice Card") with no added specificity. It does not distinguish this from close siblings like astroway_tarot_rider_waite_draw_single, astroway_tarot_rider_waite_outcome, or astroway_tarot_rider_waite_daily, all of which could plausibly be described the same way.

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 guidance at all, no mention of alternatives, and no conditions under which an agent should pick this over the many other single-card RWS tools. The endpoint and cost metadata are operational facts, not usage guidance.

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