list_all_cards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does reasonably well: 'List' signals a read-only operation and the enumerated return content tells the agent exactly what to expect. It does not discuss safety traits explicitly, but for a zero-parameter list call there is little hidden 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?

One sentence delivers the scope and output fields without filler. The key information is front-loaded: list all cards, then the basic info contents.

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 parameterless list endpoint with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the full scope (78 cards) and the exact fields returned. Sibling names further clarify its catalog role.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and no parameter explanation is needed. The description correctly omits parameter details because none exist.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('all 78 tarot cards'), and states the returned fields (name, arcana, suit). This makes it clearly distinct from siblings like get_card_meaning or draw_random_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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: this is the catalog-level tool while siblings serve individual lookups, draws, and readings. It does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over the alternatives or provide negative guidance.

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