vedika_tarot_draw

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two things an agent genuinely needs: the cost ('$0.020-0.048/call') and the shape of each returned card ('upright/reversed orientation, suit, and position meaning'). It does not say whether draws are random or deterministic, whether repeated calls on the same question differ, or what rate limits apply.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then spread-by-spread breakdown, then output content and price — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. The spread enumeration is somewhat redundant against the schema enum and could be trimmed without losing agent-usable 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?

For a zero-required-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what the tool does, how to pick a spread, and what comes back, which is enough to call it correctly. The absence of any note on determinism or on deck choice leaves minor gaps for a paid tool with no annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, and the spread enum already documents the meaning and card count of every option, so the description's spread summary largely restates the schema. The deck parameter (rider-waite/thoth/marseille) is never mentioned in the description, so no meaning is added beyond structured data. 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 ('Draw tarot cards in a chosen spread layout') and enumerates each spread with card counts and thematic focus, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling vedika_tarot_daily, which is the obvious source of ambiguity for a tarot-related tool.

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?

Gives clear selection guidance among spread values ('Single = 1 card quick answer', 'Three-card = past/present/future or situation/action/outcome', 'Celtic Cross = 10-card comprehensive reading'), which is effectively when-to-use-which guidance. It stops short of exclusions or routing versus alternative tools such as vedika_tarot_daily or vedika_iching_cast.

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