RWS — Relationship

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe and deterministic. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond '7-card relationship dynamics'. It doesn't disclose what happens with missing fields, how reversed cards are handled (though the example shows allowReversed), or the response format.

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 lines stating the purpose and an example. It's front-loaded and efficient, though it could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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's complexity (7-card reading with seed, question, reversed flag) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't describe the output format or card meanings, leaving agents uncertain about the response structure. Annotations cover safety but not functional 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 schema defines only one parameter 'body' with minimal description, but the tool description provides an example with seed, question, and allowReversed, giving agents a concrete usage pattern. Schema coverage is 100% but the schema itself is very permissive (any JSON), so the description partially compensates by showing expected 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 states '7-card relationship dynamics' and the title 'RWS — Relationship' indicates it's a Rider-Waite tarot reading focused on relationships. This is clear enough, but it doesn't elaborate on the specific relationship context (e.g., romantic, general) compared to sibling tools like 'tarot_rider_waite_draw_love_triangle' which are more specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other Rider-Waite draws (e.g., three-card, celtic cross) or similar relationship draws from other decks (e.g., Lenormand). There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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