Marseille — Single Card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds an example with 'question' and 'allowReversed', hinting at input behavior, but does not disclose the response format or any side effects. The example partially compensates, but overall behavioral details are sparse.

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 plus a group note and an example. Every element is purposeful with no redundancy. The structure front-loads the purpose, groups it, and provides a helpful example, making it easy to scan.

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?

The description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool. It lacks any mention of the output format or return value, which is critical since there is no output schema. The example only covers input. For a tool that generates a card reading, the agent needs to know what the response contains to process it correctly.

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 a single 'body' parameter with a generic description deferring to the example. The example provides field names and sample values (seed, question, allowReversed), giving some meaning. However, the description does not explicitly list required fields, types, or constraints, making the parameter semantics less clear than they could be.

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 'Single-card draw from Marseille deck,' specifying the verb (draw), resource (Marseille deck), and scope (single card). This distinctively differentiates it from sibling tools like tarot_marseille_draw_three_card or tarot_marseille_draw_celtic_cross.

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 single-card draw versus other Marseille spreads. The sibling set includes many similar tools (e.g., tarot_marseille_daily, tarot_marseille_draw_love), but the description does not provide context or alternatives for appropriate usage.

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