Lenormand — Grand Tableau

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and not destructive. The description adds only a group label and an example body, with no additional behavioral context such as whether the seed is required for reproducibility or how reversed cards affect output. It does not contradict annotations.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences plus an example. The purpose is front-loaded ('Full 36-card layout'), and the example is directly useful. No unnecessary words.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (36-card layout), the description does not explain what the output contains (e.g., card interpretations, positions, houses). There is no output schema, so the description should clarify the return format. It is incomplete for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 has 100% coverage but is a generic 'body' object with no defined properties. The description compensates by providing an example request body with fields like seed, question, and allowReversed, clarifying what the agent should include. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 it's a 'Full 36-card layout — every card and house used,' which is a unique Lenormand spread. The name 'grand_tableau' reinforces this. However, the description lacks a strong verb like 'draw' or 'generate,' though the tool name implies the action.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools (e.g., tarot_lenormand_daily or tarot_lenormand_draw_9_card_square). The group annotation only indicates it's a Lenormand tool, but no contextual cues for selection.

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