RWS: Cards by Element

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely useful scope context — that results are limited to Minor Arcana — plus a noteworthy cost caveat ('endpoint not in the public credit manifest'), which is not derivable from annotations. It says nothing about result size or pagination, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 substantive sentence is front-loaded and waste-free. The bracketed metadata block (group, endpoint, required param, cost) is boilerplate but short, and the cost line carries real information. Slight redundancy between '[Required: element]' and the schema keeps it from a 5.

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?

The tool is simple — one enum parameter, all annotations present, and an output schema so return values need no explanation. Given that, the description is adequate but thin: it never distinguishes itself from suit-based or minors siblings, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face in this dense tarot tool family.

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 100% and the single parameter carries an enum of fire/water/air/earth, so the schema already fully documents the input. The description merely restates those four values ('mapped to fire / water / air / earth') without explaining the elemental correspondence, e.g. which suits fall under each element. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a concrete resource and scope: 'All Minor cards mapped to fire / water / air / earth element', which tells the agent this returns a filtered list of Minor Arcana keyed by element. It explicitly excludes Majors, which is a meaningful boundary. What it does not do is differentiate itself from near-siblings such as suits_suit or minors, so it falls 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this rather than astroway_tarot_rider_waite_suits_suit (same cards, suit-based grouping) or astroway_tarot_rider_waite_minors. The '[Required: element]' tag states an input fact already enforced by the schema, not usage context. The agent must infer the selection criteria itself.

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