tarot_draw

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states randomness but omits key behavioral facts: whether drawn cards are unique, whether reversals are possible, whether drawing is repeatable/stateless, and what a card result looks like. For a random-draw tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Efficient, though it is on the terse side rather than optimally informative for the tool's complexity.

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 with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but does not convey return shape or drawing semantics. It gets by on the schema alone without fully covering the behavioral 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'count' parameter is fully documented in the schema including its default of 3. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 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?

Specific verb ('Draw') plus resource ('tarot cards') with the 'random' modifier, which implicitly contrasts with the sibling tarot_all_cards (full listing) and tarot_search. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or explicitly distinguishes itself from those siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this versus tarot_all_cards or tarot_search, nor any stated context for the 'reading' use case. The agent must infer the difference from the tool names alone.

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