RWS: Missing Info Card

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the concrete cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the endpoint, which are genuine extra facts an agent needs for budget decisions, but says nothing about what the card output contains or how seed/allowReversed affect the 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 intent sentence is front-loaded and short, and the bracketed group/endpoint/cost lines are scannable metadata rather than prose padding. Slight waste in restating the group name the tool name already encodes.

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 and annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining burden is routing and inputs. The description leaves both thin: no differentiation from sibling single-card tools and no explanation of the three undocumented parameters.

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); question, seed, and allowReversed have no descriptions anywhere. The description does not compensate at all — it never mentions that a question can be supplied or how the seed or reversal flag influences the draw.

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?

"Single card to surface hidden information" names the resource (one card) and the reading intent (hidden information), which is more specific than a bare draw. It does not, however, distinguish this from near siblings like draw_single, clarify, or shadow_card, which an agent could easily 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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The tarot namespace has many single-card and specialized-spread siblings (draw_single, advice, outcome, clarify, shadow_card), and nothing here says which situation selects this one.

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