Marseille — Celtic Cross

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the reading style ('Marseille pip-style'). It does not contradict annotations, but also does not elaborate on auth needs, rate limits, or side effects, which are already covered by 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 sentences and an example. The first sentence immediately conveys purpose, and the example is front-loaded. Every element earns its place with no waste.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., card positions, interpretation). Given the tool's complexity (10-card spread) and the presence of sibling tools, this omission makes the description incomplete for an agent to understand the full behavior.

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 single 'body' parameter is vaguely described as 'Raw JSON body' in the schema, but the description provides an example request body showing fields (seed, question, allowReversed) that give practical meaning. This goes beyond the schema definition, earning a 4, though not all possible fields are documented.

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 the tool performs an 'Adapted 10-card Celtic Cross' reading using 'Marseille pip-style'. This is a specific verb+resource+style, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like tarot_rider_waite_draw_celtic_cross and tarot_lenormand_draw_celtic_cross_lenormand.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include many tarot draws (e.g., tarot_marseille_draw_career, tarot_marseille_draw_love) and other Celtic Cross variants, but the description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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