RWS — Timing Card

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide (readOnly, idempotent). It does not explain what happens with seed or allowReversed parameters, or what the response looks like. Annotations ensure safety, but description fails to elaborate on tool behavior.

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: one sentence plus a group label and an example. It front-loads the purpose. However, it lacks structure and could integrate the example more clearly. It is efficient but slightly under-specified.

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 simple tool (single card), the description partially covers functionality via the example. However, it omits: what the timing card indicates, expected output format, and prerequisites. With no output schema and sparse parameter documentation, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool.

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?

Only one parameter 'body' is defined in the schema with minimal description. The tool description includes an example showing 'seed', 'question', 'allowReversed' fields, which provides semantic hints. However, the description does not formally explain these fields, relying on the example. Schema coverage is 100% but the description is weak.

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 'Single timing card to indicate when', which clearly identifies the tool's purpose as a tarot card draw for timing questions. It distinguishes itself from other tarot tools by being specifically for timing. However, it lacks detail on what 'timing' entails.

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 alternatives. With siblings like 'tarot_marseille_timing', the user receives no explicit instructions on choosing this tool over others. The example shows request fields but not usage context.

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