Marseille — Seven-Card

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as output format, number of cards interpreted, or any side effects. Without annotations, this would be a 1, but annotations partially fulfill 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 extremely concise (3 lines) and front-loads the essential purpose and group. The example is included without unnecessary text. However, it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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 the simplicity of the tool (single parameter), the absence of output schema or description of return values (e.g., card interpretations or positions) leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect. The example only covers input.

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 defines only a generic 'body' object with additional properties. The description compensates by providing a concrete example request with fields (seed, question, allowReversed), clarifying required structure beyond the 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 states '7-card pyramid spread' and groups it under Tarot — Marseille, making the purpose clear. It differentiates from sibling tools through the specific card count and spread type, though 'pyramid' could be more explicitly defined.

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 spread versus alternatives like Celtic Cross or three-card draws. The context signals show many sibling tarot tools, but the description offers no selection criteria.

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