Generate Tarot Reading (PDF or HTML)

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds useful behavioral details: seed controls reproducibility, omitting seed uses a daily seed, and cost is indicated separately. However, it does not explain the output format (e.g., returns a file URL or base64) or any side effects beyond generation.

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 description is concise (5 sentences plus example), front-loads the core purpose, and uses a bullet-like list for spreads. The example request is helpful. Minor improvement would be grouping related info more clearly.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description covers key aspects (spreads, seed, allowReversed) but omits whitelabel and output format. The openWorldHint annotation is clarified by the seed behavior. Overall, it leaves the agent uncertain about the return value and advanced customization.

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 0%, so the description partially compensates by explaining spread, seed, and allowReversed. However, 'name', 'language', and especially the complex 'whitelabel' object are not described, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool renders a tarot reading PDF/HTML, specifies the default spread and deck (Rider-Waite-Smith), and lists available spreads. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform card draws or interpretations without generating a formatted report.

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 description provides context such as default spread, seed for reproducibility, and an example request, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over the many other tarot tools (e.g., tarot_rider_waite_draw_three_card). An agent would need to infer that this is for generating a downloadable report rather than raw reading data.

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