RWS: Single Card Draw

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context: the seed produces a deterministic shuffle (explaining the idempotentHint), and the operation costs 10 credits at Tier 1 — cost is behavior an agent needs before calling. It does not say whether reversed cards can appear or how the question affects the reading, keeping it below 5.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence with the seed note immediately after. The bracketed metadata block is boilerplate but short and carries the cost/endpoint facts. No wasted prose.

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 described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 4-parameter tool the description leaves the role of 'question' and the effect of 'allowReversed' unaddressed, which is the main remaining gap for actually invoking it correctly.

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 only 25%: only 'art' carries a schema description, so the description must compensate. It explains 'seed' as a deterministic shuffle control, which is real added meaning, but says nothing about 'question' (500-char free text) or 'allowReversed' (default true). Two of four parameters remain semantically opaque.

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 card from the RWS deck' — which is concrete and actionable. Combined with the title 'RWS: Single Card Draw', an agent can distinguish it from the sibling multi-card RWS spreads and from Marseille/Lenormand single draws. It never explicitly contrasts with those alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the 'draw 1 card' phrasing; there is no statement of when to choose this over astroway_tarot_rider_waite_draw_three_card, astroway_tarot_rider_waite_daily, or astroway_tarot_rider_waite_clarify. The credit cost line gives a mild selection signal (cheap one-card pull) but no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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