recommend_spread

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds no additional behavioral context such as how the recommendation is made, limitations, or what the output contains. The description merely restates the purpose without enriching the behavioral understanding beyond the 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?

A single, well-structured sentence of 15 words immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, there is no redundancy, and the key action and resource are front-loaded.

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 complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists but not detailed in description), the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain how to interpret the recommendation or what output to expect, but the existence of the output schema somewhat compensates. Sibling differentiation is not addressed, leaving some context gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not mention any parameters, but the schema already adequately describes each parameter's meaning, so no additional value is provided.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get a recommendation' and identifies the resource as 'the most appropriate tarot spread', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like 'list_available_spreads' (which just lists) and 'create_custom_spread' (which creates).

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 clear context that the tool is used 'based on your question or situation', implying it is for selecting a spread. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, which prevents a higher score.

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