RWS: Clarifier Card

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context (POST endpoint, 10-credit Tier 1 cost), but says nothing about how seed controls reproducibility or how the question parameter influences the draw.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose sentence comes first, followed by tightly formatted metadata lines. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing parameter detail.

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 cost/endpoint metadata is present. However, for a 4-parameter tool with 25% schema coverage, the definition leaves the meaning of question, seed, and allowReversed unexplained, which is a real gap 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 description coverage is only 25% — only 'art' is documented inline. The description provides no meaning for 'question', 'seed', or 'allowReversed', so the agent must guess whether question shapes the draw and whether seed makes it deterministic. With low coverage the description should have compensated and does not.

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 action and resource: drawing a single clarifying card after a primary draw. The phrase 'after a primary draw' implicitly separates it from siblings like astroway_tarot_rider_waite_draw_single or astroway_tarot_rider_waite_draw_three_card, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

The context ('after a primary draw') implies when to use it, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of astroway_tarot_marseille_clarify or the various RWS draw tools as alternatives. Usage must be inferred.

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