RWS: Custom Spread

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real context: the seeded shuffle (reproducibility), localized card text, and a 10-credit Tier 1 cost. It does not say whether omitting `seed` randomizes the draw, which is the one behavior an agent most needs.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences that state the draw range and the two input modes immediately, with no filler. The bracketed group/endpoint/cost block is conventional metadata, only the cost line adding real value.

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 rightly go unexplained, and the cost/seed/i18n notes round out the picture. Still missing is the precedence rule when both `positions` and `count` are given and the default-seed behavior, both of which affect how an agent calls this six-parameter tool.

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 50%; the description usefully establishes the `positions`-or-`count` relationship that the schema itself does not express. However it leaves `seed`, `question`, and `allowReversed` (three of six params) unaddressed while the schema carries descriptions only on `art`, `count`, and `positions`.

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 ("Draw 1-15 cards") plus the differentiating capability: user-named `positions` or a bare `count`. That implicitly separates it from the fixed-spread siblings (draw_single, draw_three_card, draw_celtic_cross), though it never names one 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 two usage modes (named positions vs. count) are stated, which is genuine when-to-use information. But it never says when to prefer this over a fixed spread, nor what to do if both `positions` and `count` are supplied.

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