yes_no_reading

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool draws one card and produces a verdict, but it does not explain how the verdict is derived (e.g., card orientation, suit), whether the draw is non-destructive, or what the return payload looks like. Core behavior is conveyed, but meaningful behavioral detail is missing.

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 15-word sentence that front-loads the action ('Draw a single card') and the outcome ('return the verdict'). Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects), but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should specify what the verdict looks like rather than leaving it to inference. The behavioral overlap with draw_random_card is also unresolved. Adequate for a minimal tool, but with identifiable 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'a yes/no question' clarifies that the question parameter should be a binary-answerable question, which the schema alone (plain required string, no description) does not convey.

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 a specific verb ('draw'), a specific resource ('a single card'), and a clear purpose ('for a yes/no question and return the verdict'). It distinguishes itself from siblings: three_card_spread draws multiple cards, get_card_meaning returns card meanings, and draw_random_card lacks the yes/no verdict semantics.

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 intended use context — when the user has a yes/no question — is implied by the description, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusion criteria, or naming of alternatives such as draw_random_card or three_card_spread. An agent must infer when this tool is preferred over its siblings.

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