Marseille — Yes/No

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that it is a single-card verdict, which is consistent and provides context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise: one sentence plus group indicator and example. Every part is useful, and the example provides clarity. Could be slightly expanded to describe the verdict output.

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 single-card yes/no tool with no output schema, the description adequately states purpose and gives an example. However, it does not specify what the response contains beyond 'verdict', nor does it clarify that the question is required. The group context is provided.

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 one 'body' parameter with a description pointing to the example. The example shows required fields (seed, question, allowReversed), adding meaning. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description helps via example but doesn't enumerate fields explicitly.

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?

Title 'Marseille — Yes/No' and description 'Single-card yes/no with verdict' clearly state it's a binary decision tool using one card. It distinguishes from other tarot draws like love or career draws, and from other deck's decision tools.

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 title clearly indicates yes/no decisions, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this versus other tarot draws (e.g., love, career). It implies usage for binary questions but lacks explicit guidance or mention of alternatives.

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