Marseille — Career

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the number of cards (4) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., whether it returns a full reading, stores data, or has rate limits). With annotations covering safety, the description provides minimal extra transparency.

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 concise (two lines plus example). The group tag is useful for categorization. The example is helpful but could be separated for clarity. No wasted 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?

For a simple tarot draw with one parameter and good annotations, the description covers the basics. However, it does not explain the return format or what the tool outputs (e.g., card names, positions). Adding return context would improve completeness.

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 has one 'body' parameter described as 'Raw JSON body — see the example in the tool description'. The description provides an explicit example showing required fields (seed, question, allowReversed), which adds meaning beyond the minimal schema description. This compensates for the generic 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 '4-card career spread' clearly states the verb (draw), resource (tarot cards), and scope (career). The group tag '[Group: Tarot — Marseille]' helps identify the deck. Among many sibling tarot draw tools, 'career' distinguishes it from love, spiritual, etc.

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 indicates use for career questions but does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., other career tools like reports_career). No explicit exclusion criteria or comparison to siblings.

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