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 the group tag and a concrete cost (10 credits, Tier 1), which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or what the figure output contains.

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?

It is short and front-loads the keyword fragment, but the content is not functional and the group/cost tags are structured metadata rather than explanatory prose. Briefness here stems from under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description still fails to tell the agent what this tool produces or why it differs from its many geomancy siblings. For a tool in a 16-figure family, that omission is material.

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 both parameters (fields, precision) are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning.

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 a three-word keyword fragment ("Wisdom, peace, clarity.") that echoes the title "Albus: White" rather than stating what the tool does. It never says it returns the Albus geomantic figure, its interpretation, or its attributes, so an agent cannot distinguish it from the 15 sibling geomancy figures by function.

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 invoke this figure versus any of the other geomancy tools (Puer, Rubeus, Fortuna Major, etc.). No conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned at all.

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