RWS — Birth 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 clear. The description adds the specific method (Mary Greer's m+d+y reduction) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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, consisting of one sentence describing the method plus a group tag and an example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler. Every element earns its place.

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, so the description should explain what the return value contains (e.g., card name, number, interpretation). It only says 'Birth card' without further details. Additionally, the role of optional location parameters is not clarified. This leaves the agent with gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior and output.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description provides an example input for the required 'date' parameter but does not clarify the purpose of optional parameters like latitude, longitude, and timezoneOffset, which may appear irrelevant for a birth card calculation. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds only marginal value.

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 computes a birth card from a date using Mary Greer's method (m+d+y reduced). The title and group tag 'RWS — Birth Card' and 'Tarot — Rider-Waite-Smith' distinguish it from sibling tools like tarot_marseille_birth_card. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tarot_marseille_birth_card or other tarot birth card tools. The group tag provides implicit context, but no direct comparison or usage criteria are stated, leaving the agent to infer suitability from the name alone.

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