RWS — Career

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already define safety traits. The description adds no behavioral context beyond stating it's a tarot spread, which is implicit. No contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences plus a clear example. Every element is necessary and front-loaded. No redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., card positions, interpretations). Given the many sibling tools, this omission hinders correct selection and use.

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% with one 'body' parameter. The example request body (`{"seed":12345,"question":"...","allowReversed":true}`) adds meaning by showing required fields, compensating for the loose schema. Could define more 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 description clearly states it is a '5-card career trajectory spread,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tarot tools like love or spiritual path draws, though could elaborate on the spread's structure.

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 explicit guidance on when to versus not use this tool or alternatives. With many sibling tarot draw tools (e.g., tarot_rider_waite_draw_relationship), the lack of usage cues is a gap.

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