tarot_all_cards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no indication of deck size (e.g. 78 cards), result format, or whether meanings/keywords are included.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. For a zero-parameter enumeration tool, this is appropriately sized; there is no filler or padding.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations about return shape, the description never says what a returned card looks like (name only, or name plus suit/arcana/meaning). For a trivial list tool this is a minor but real gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the schema to describe and nothing the description needs to compensate for. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-arg tool.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all tarot cards in the deck'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not name or contrast with the obvious siblings tarot_search and tarot_draw, though the word 'all' implicitly sets it apart.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the 'get the full deck' option versus tarot_search (filtered lookup) or tarot_draw (random single card).

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