RWS — Clarifier Card

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description only adds that it returns a single card, but does not explain the response format or additional behavioral traits such as how the card is selected or what parameters influence behavior.

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 with no wasted words, immediately stating the function and providing an example. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, such as hinting at the output.

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 omits any mention of the response structure or how to interpret the returned card. Given the simplicity of the tool, this lack of return value information leaves the agent under-informed.

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 defines a generic 'body' object with no internal schema, but the description provides a concrete example with seed, question, and allowReversed, which compensates for the schema's lack of detail and guides the agent on required fields.

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 provides a 'single clarifying card after a primary draw', using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform primary draws or other tarot operations.

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 phrase 'after a primary draw' implies sequential usage, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like tarot_marseille_clarify or give exclusions.

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