RWS — Advice Card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, e.g., no mention of auth requirements, rate limits, or how the advice card is generated. The example request body is present but does not disclose behavioral traits.

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 line, a group label, and an example. Every element serves a purpose, though it could be better structured with separate sections for example and parameters.

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 tool has no output schema and the description does not explain what the response contains. The parameter description is minimal despite a complex nested object. Given the large sibling list of similar tools, more context on when to use this specific tool is needed.

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 100% coverage but is vague (only describes 'body' as a JSON object). The description provides an example with fields like 'seed', 'question', 'allowReversed', adding essential meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explicitly list all allowed parameters or their constraints.

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 name and title clearly indicate a single advice card from Rider-Waite-Smith tarot. The description 'Single advice card' specifies the resource and action, but lacks a verb like 'draw' or 'get'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the group, though no explicit differentiation from similar 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other tarot drawing tools (e.g., tarot_rider_waite_draw_single). No context on prerequisites or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess.

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