draw_random_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it does disclose the randomized nature and single-card scope. It does not, however, describe the output shape or mention that reversed_allowed controls whether the drawn card may be reversed, which is relevant behavioral context.

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 one succinct sentence that front-loads the essential action and scope. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core action, but with no output schema and no annotations it leaves out what the function returns and how the single draw relates to the sibling reading tools. The missing return-value context makes it adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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% because the single parameter already has a complete description ('Whether the card can appear reversed (default true)'). The tool description adds no new parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('draw'), a specific resource ('a single random tarot card'), and the scope ('from the 78-card deck'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like three_card_spread (multiple cards) and list_all_cards (non-random listing).

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 the use case: when exactly one random tarot card is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives such as three_card_spread or yes_no_reading.

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