Marseille — Daily Card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the card is 'based on date seed,' implying determinism and idempotency, which aligns with annotations. It provides context about the deterministic nature beyond the structured 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 very short—one sentence plus a group tag and an example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. No extraneous information. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the group tag into a separate line for clarity), but it is efficient.

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 low complexity, the description fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., card name, image, meaning). No output schema exists. The agent must infer the return value from the tool name and group. This omission reduces completeness for an otherwise simple tool.

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% description coverage, so the schema itself clearly documents all four parameters. The description only mentions the 'date' parameter in the example, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high coverage.

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 provides a 'Daily Marseille card based on date seed,' specifying both the deck (Marseille) and the variant (daily card). The title reinforces this. This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like tarot_marseille_draw_celtic_cross or tarot_rider_waite_daily.

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: Tarot — Marseille]' tag and an example request, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other tarot draws (e.g., when a simple daily draw is needed vs. a complex spread). Usage is implied by the tool name and group, but no alternatives or exclusions are given.

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