RWS — Horseshoe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds only the number of cards and an example request body, without explaining the layout meaning or any behavioral nuances beyond what annotations provide.

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 (two short sentences plus example), with the core purpose front-loaded. It could be slightly better structured, but it is efficient and clear.

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?

Given the tool has many siblings and a nested parameter with no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the horseshoe spread's significance, typical use cases, or expected output format, which leaves the agent underinformed.

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 single parameter 'body' has a schema description pointing to the tool description for required fields. The description provides a concrete example with 'seed', 'question', and 'allowReversed', which adds meaningful context beyond the generic schema definition.

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 '7-card horseshoe progression' under the Tarot Rider-Waite-Smith group, which distinguishes it from other tarot spreads like Celtic Cross or three-card draws. The name and title align well with the purpose.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the many other tarot siblings (e.g., tarot_rider_waite_draw_celtic_cross). The description does not mention alternatives or specific contexts for the horseshoe spread.

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