Lenormand — Celtic Cross

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe reads. The description adds no behavioral context such as output format, what happens with invalid input, or any constraints beyond the example. It does not contradict annotations but fails to add meaningful behavioral information.

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 very short: three sentences including the group label and example. It is concise and front-loaded with purpose, but could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., card positions, interpretation). It only provides an input example, leaving the agent without knowledge of the output structure. Annotations cover safety but not completeness.

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?

The input schema is minimal with only a 'body' object having no defined properties. The description provides an example showing required fields (seed, question, allowReversed), which adds essential semantics beyond the schema. However, it does not formally document all possible parameters or their types.

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 'Adapted Celtic Cross with Lenormand cards' which clearly identifies the tool as a Celtic Cross spread using Lenormand cards. The title and group label help differentiate from other tarot tools, but it does not explicitly distinguish from the similar 'tarot_marseille_draw_celtic_cross' sibling, lacking explicit differentiation.

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 an example request body but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other Lenormand draws or Marseille Celtic Cross). There are no usage scenarios, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool mentions.

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