RWS: Three-Card Draw

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema facts — the POST endpoint and the 10-credit Tier 1 cost — but says nothing about determinism via seed, why repeated calls may be idempotent, or whether reversed cards can appear.

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 one substantive sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, and the endpoint/cost metadata is arguably useful. But at this length it reads as under-specification rather than tightness for a four-parameter draw tool.

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 and rich annotations reduce the burden, but three of four parameters (question, seed, allowReversed) are undocumented anywhere, and the description never explains how they affect the draw. An agent calling this correctly needs that context.

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 in the schema, while 'seed', 'question', and 'allowReversed' are bare. The description does not compensate at all — it never mentions that a question can be supplied, what a seed does, or what allowReversed controls.

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?

The description names the specific spread and its three positions (Past / Present / Future), so the agent knows exactly what is drawn. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as draw_single, draw_relationship, or the Marseille/Lenormand three-card variants; only the tool name carries that routing signal.

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 statement of when to choose this spread over the many other RWS draws, nor when not to. The agent must infer from the 'Past / Present / Future' label that this is the general-purpose timeline spread.

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