RWS: Interpret a Hand

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description's job is to add context — and it does, disclosing a 10-credit Tier 1 cost and the required parameter, neither of which appears in the annotations or schema. It does not describe any output shape, but an output schema exists so that is less critical.

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?

One descriptive sentence followed by a compact bracketed metadata block; the core action is front-loaded and nothing is padded. The bracket lines are dense but each carries decision-relevant facts (endpoint, required param, cost).

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the essentials (action, required param, cost, endpoint) are present, but the definition leaves the agent without guidance on the optional 'question' parameter's effect, the art set enumeration source, or where to get valid slugs.

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 33%: only 'art' is documented in the schema. The description usefully clarifies that 'cards' contains card *slugs* (not names or IDs), which is real value beyond the bare array-of-strings type. However it says nothing about 'art' or 'question', nor how to obtain slugs, leaving two of three parameters unexplained.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Resolve a list of card slugs into structured meanings,' with a parenthetical that separates it from the whole-spread endpoint POST /interpret/tarot. That differentiation is real, though it does not distinguish against the many other tarot siblings (e.g. astroway_ai_interpret_tarot, astroway_tarot_rider_waite_cards_slug) an agent might confuse it with.

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 parenthetical gives an implicit routing rule: use this to resolve individual cards, use /interpret/tarot when you want the reading of the whole spread written out. Clear context, but no explicit 'when not to use' and no mention of the AI-interpret or lookup siblings.

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