get_card_meanings_comparison

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

The description clarifies that the tool compares cards and outputs a combined message, which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). No contradictions; adds context beyond the annotations by describing the output purpose.

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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core action (compare cards) with key details (2-5, optional orientation, output purpose). No wasted words.

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?

The description is complete for this tool: it covers the main use case, parameters are well-documented in schema, annotations provide safety hints, and no output schema exists to explain return values. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add new semantics beyond summarizing the function, achieving baseline with no additional parameter-level detail.

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 the tool compares 2-5 tarot cards with optional orientation to understand relationships and combined message. It distinguishes from siblings like get_card_info (single card) and get_random_cards (random selection).

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 implies usage for comparing cards but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like perform_reading or recommend_spread. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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