Lenormand — Three-Card

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description is not required to repeat those. The description adds that it uses a 'raw JSON body' with an example showing seed, question, and allowReversed parameters, which gives some behavioral context. However, it does not explain the meaning of the three positions or any additional constraints, so credit is limited to baseline for annotation coverage.

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 (two sentences plus a group tag and example), which is efficient. The purpose is front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the example or adding a brief explanation of the spread meaning. It earns most points for being concise without losing core purpose.

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 complexity of a three-card Lenormand spread and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the 'Subject / Situation / Outcome' positions represent or what the response will contain. The agent cannot infer the structure or meaning of the returned data. Compared to other tools with richer descriptions, this lacks necessary context.

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 schema coverage is 100% for the single 'body' parameter, but the schema only describes it as 'Raw JSON body' with no property definitions. The description compensates by providing a concrete example request body with fields like seed, question, and allowReversed, which adds semantic meaning beyond the schema. This helps the agent understand required and optional fields, though it does not document all possible parameters.

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 performs a 'Subject / Situation / Outcome three-card line' Lenormand draw. The title 'Lenormand — Three-Card' combined with the description specifies the verb (draw) and resource (three-card line). Among sibling tools like tarot_lenormand_draw_line_of_five and tarot_lenormand_draw_grand_tableau, this one is uniquely identified by its three-card spread format.

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 alternatives like other Lenormand spreads or tarot tools. It does not state prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this spread is appropriate. The agent receives no hints for tool selection among dozens of tarot/Lenormand siblings.

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