Marseille — Love

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds limited behavioral context. It mentions it's a spread, implying a read operation, which is consistent with annotations. No additional behavioral details (e.g., response format) are provided, but the description does not contradict 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, with two sentences and an example. It front-loads the purpose and includes a group marker for organizational context. Every element is necessary, and there is no redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns beyond being a spread. The example hints at input structure but lacks details about the card interpretation or result format. For a tool with a single vague parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally complete but leaves gaps for the agent.

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 only defines a generic 'body' parameter with no internal structure. The description provides an example request body with fields like seed, question, and allowReversed, giving meaning beyond the schema. However, the schema does not enforce these fields, and the example is not exhaustive. The agent must rely on the example for correct invocation.

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 is a '5-card love and connection spread', which is a specific verb+resource combination. The title 'Marseille — Love' reinforces this. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tarot_marseille_draw_career and other love-focused spreads like tarot_rider_waite_draw_relationship.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tarot_marseille_draw_relationship or tarot_rider_waite_draw_relationship. The agent must infer from the name and title, which may lead to confusion among many similar love-oriented spreads.

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