RWS — Yes/No

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds that the tool draws a single card and returns a verdict based on card affinity, which is consistent with annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional behavioral context (verdict logic).

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 tag and an example. The core purpose is stated in the first sentence, and the example is front-loaded. Every element is necessary and no fluff exists.

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?

For a simple yes/no draw tool, the description covers the key aspects: single-card draw, verdict type (yes/no/maybe), and example parameters. There is no output schema, but the description hints at the verdict structure. The tool is straightforward, so this level of detail is largely sufficient, though explicit output format would improve completeness.

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 only specifies a 'body' object with a pointer to examples. The description provides an example with fields 'seed', 'question', and 'allowReversed', adding semantic meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explicitly list field requirements or types, relying on the example to convey structure.

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 title 'RWS — Yes/No' and description 'Single-card draw with yes/no/maybe verdict from card affinity' clearly state the tool's purpose: drawing a single tarot card to provide a yes/no/maybe answer. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'tarot_rider_waite_draw_single' (which likely just draws a card without verdict) and other tarot draw 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?

The description implies usage for yes/no questions through its title and verdict description, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other tarot draws, or non-tarot decision tools). No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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