RWS — Three-Card Draw

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotent. The description adds the spread positions and an example, but does not disclose important behavioral traits such as whether interpretation is included, if the seed makes it deterministic, or what the output format is. Minimal beyond annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the spread name and group. The example is helpful. Efficient, though slightly more detail on expected parameters would not harm conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not mention the response format, positions interpretation, or whether multiple cards are displayed. Annotations cover readOnly and idempotent, but the tarot context requires more completeness for an agent to use it correctly.

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 defines a generic 'body' object. The description provides an example with seed, question, and allowReversed, giving meaning to the parameters. However, it does not explain field types, ranges, or whether they are required (example shows them as optional). Adds value but could be more explicit.

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 'Past / Present / Future three-card spread,' specifying the verb (draw) and the resource (three-card spread with positions). It distinguishes from single-card draws or other spreads by naming the spread type, but lacks elaboration on what the tool returns.

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 use this tool versus other tarot tools (e.g., single card, Celtic cross). The example implies it can answer a question, but there is no comparison with siblings to help the agent choose this spread over alternatives.

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