RWS: Relationship

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description does add real context annotations cannot carry: a 10-credit Tier 1 cost and the POST endpoint. It says nothing about how the question parameter influences the reading or whether a fixed seed yields a repeatable 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?

The text is front-loaded with the one substantive sentence, then compact metadata lines. Nothing is padded or repetitive, though the extreme brevity means little is actually communicated.

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. Still, a 4-parameter drawing tool with 25% schema coverage and no discussion of question semantics, seeding behavior, or spread positions leaves too much for the agent to infer before calling it.

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% (just `art`), and the description compensates for none of it. The agent gets no explanation of `question` (its 500-char purpose), `seed` (reproducibility), or `allowReversed` (whether reversals change card meanings), which are exactly the parts a caller must get right.

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?

'7-card relationship dynamics' names the resource and the spread size, which is more than the title alone. But it never states an action verb or what the output is, and it does nothing to separate itself from the very similar sibling astroway_tarot_lenormand_draw_relationship or from astroway_tarot_rider_waite_draw_love_triangle.

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 guidance on when to choose this spread over draw_three_card, draw_love_triangle, or the Lenormand relationship draw. The only context given is the endpoint and cost line, which tells the agent nothing about selection criteria.

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