tarot_draw

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the shuffle is audited and strongly instructs the host not to invent the draw, which is critical for correct use. It stops short of describing output semantics, but the output schema likely handles that.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then supplies critical behavioral and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value.

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 description covers core draw behavior and seed usage, but for a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, it omits explanation of spread types (decision, creative, project) and the meaning of reversals. These gaps reduce completeness despite the output schema.

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 covers `deck` and `seed` (50%), but the description only restates `seed`'s test/demo purpose already in the schema, adding no new meaning. It fails to explain `spread` and `reversals`, which have no schema descriptions, so the low coverage is not compensated.

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 opens with 'Draw tarot cards', a specific verb and resource, and adds 'audited Fisher-Yates shuffle' to distinguish it from other divination tools. Sibling tools like iching_cast and xiaoliuren_cast are clearly different systems, so this uniquely identifies the tool's purpose.

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 gives clear context on when to omit `seed` for real readings versus using seeded mode for tests/demos, which is an important usage guideline. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the distinct sibling names make that less critical.

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