Lenormand — Line of Five

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds 'linear story spread' and an example, but does not disclose additional traits like shuffling or deck state. No contradiction with 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 lines plus example. Critical information (spread type, group) is front-loaded. No superfluous text.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (cards, interpretations, etc.). For a card draw, this is a significant gap. Sibling tools vary in completeness but this lacks essential info.

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?

Input schema defines a single raw body object with 100% coverage via description. The tool description provides an example showing required fields (seed, question, allowReversed), adding value beyond 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 'Five-card linear story spread' clearly identifies the tool as a Lenormand card draw for a specific spread. Combined with the title and sibling tools list, it distinguishes this from other Lenormand draws (e.g., daily, three-card, celtic cross).

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 includes a group label but no explicit guidance on when to use this spread versus other Lenormand spreads. The example request body implies usage for narrative reading, but lacks when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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