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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful non-annotation context: endpoint, group, and a cost of 10 credits (Tier 1). However, it does not explain what the tool returns or any other behavioral traits beyond cost and endpoint.

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 very short and front-loads the symbolic meaning before bracketed metadata. It avoids waste, though the content is minimal for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite a rich schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description never states the tool's action or purpose. It supplies endpoint and cost metadata, but an agent still cannot tell from the description alone that this tool provides a geomancy reading for Caput Draconis.

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%, so the input parameters (fields, precision) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, but the baseline is 3 when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 gives only the symbolic meaning of Caput Draconis ('Dragon's Head: beginnings, threshold') without a verb or resource indicating what the tool actually does. It effectively restates the title rather than specifying an action such as retrieving a geomancy interpretation.

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 use this tool versus its many geomancy siblings (e.g., cauda_draconis, puer, via). It provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help an agent choose it.

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