Lenormand — Relationship

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond the basic 7-card relationship dynamics, which is acceptable but not elevated.

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—and front-loads the purpose. However, the lack of usage guidelines and the somewhat terse group tag reduce the efficiency; each element earns its place, but missing guidance space could have been better utilized.

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 the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools for specific spreads, the description adequately identifies the tool's purpose and example input. However, it does not explain what the 7 cards represent or how the output should be interpreted, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 generic (a JSON object with a single 'body' property of type object). The description compensates by providing a concrete example ('{"seed":12345,"question":"What should I focus on?","allowReversed":true}'), which clarifies the expected structure and required fields 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 '7-card relationship dynamics' uses a specific verb ('draw') and clearly specifies the resource ('relationship dynamics'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tarot_lenormand_daily and tarot_lenormand_draw_three_card by indicating the scope and spread type.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not state that it is best for relationship questions or contrast it with other Lenormand draw tools. The example request body shows what to send, but no selection criteria are given.

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