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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: a cost of 10 credits (Tier 1) and the Agrippa system grouping. It does not, however, describe response shape or any behavioral nuance beyond pricing.

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 text is short and cleanly structured with bracketed metadata, but the opening line largely duplicates the title rather than adding content, so brevity here reflects thinness rather than economy. It is front-loaded but not substantive.

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 zero required parameters and an output schema present, the description is not obligated to explain return values, and annotations cover safety. What remains missing is the fundamental statement of what invoking this tool produces, which is why it sits at minimum viability rather than higher.

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 optional parameters (fields, precision) are fully documented in the schema, including compact-mode semantics and rounding. The description adds nothing about parameters, 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?

The description is essentially a synonym list for the figure's name/title: 'Acquisitio: Gain' restated as 'Gain, profit, abundance.' It never states what the tool actually does (compute a geomancy figure? return an interpretation?) or how it differs from the 15 sibling geomancy figure tools. An agent learns the symbol's meaning but not the operation.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative selection guidance is present. The '[Group: Geomancy (Agrippa)]' tag hints at family membership but gives no selection criteria among albus, amissio, fortuna_major, etc. This is effectively no guidance.

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