RWS — Outcome Card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds no new behavioral context beyond the example, which hints at reproducibility via seed and reversed cards. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or idempotent, nor does it discuss potential side effects.

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 short (three lines) but includes necessary group context and a helpful example. It could be slightly more structured or include a brief note about output, but it avoids verbosity. It is concise but borders on too minimal.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a card name, image, interpretation). It does not specify the response format, leaving the agent to guess. The example only covers the request side. The tool is part of a complex tarot suite, and the description lacks completeness for an agent to confidently use it without additional context.

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 is minimal, with only a 'body' object and no property definitions. However, the description provides an example request body showing the fields 'seed', 'question', and 'allowReversed', which fully compensates for the sparse schema. This example is essential for understanding the required parameters and their types.

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 provides a 'Single outcome card' from the Rider-Waite-Smith tarot deck. The title 'RWS — Outcome Card' helps differentiate it from other tarot tools like advice or daily draws. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings beyond the phrase 'outcome card'.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify scenarios for outcome card draws compared to other tarot functions (e.g., advice, daily, cross sum). The group hint is present but not helpful for usage decisions.

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