vedika_tarot_daily

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses determinism/caching ("repeated calls return the same card"), the response shape, and an explicit per-call cost of $0.008. It omits error behavior and timezone handling for "today", which is why it isn't a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then return contents, then operational facts (caching, cost). No filler and every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by listing the returned fields, plus caching and cost. Only minor gaps remain: no note on which timezone defines "today" and no error/failure behavior for an invalid date.

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% — both date (YYYY-MM-DD, defaults to today) and deck (enum with default rider-waite) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying a date, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get the tarot card of the day") and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. The daily/cached framing implicitly separates it from the sibling vedika_tarot_draw, but the alternative is never named, so the distinction is inferred rather than stated.

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?

"Cached per day — repeated calls return the same card" gives a useful usage hint (don't re-call expecting a new card) and the cost line supports budget decisions. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to vedika_tarot_draw for a fresh random draw, leaving the choice between the two siblings to inference.

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