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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely useful context the annotations lack — the cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the group membership. However, it discloses nothing about what a call actually produces.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the figure's meaning first and metadata bracketed below. No sentence is wasted, though the first line conveys symbolic flavor rather than operational 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the parameters are fully documented. What is missing is the core operational statement of what the tool does, which leaves an agent guessing at its behavior despite the otherwise adequate structured coverage.

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 both parameters (fields, precision) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the figure's name translated with a symbolic gloss ("Dragon's Tail: endings, exit"). It never states a verb or what the tool returns — no indication that it delivers a geomancy reading for this figure. It restates the title rather than describing a function, and does not distinguish the tool from the 15 sibling geomancy figures beyond the figure's name.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named. The symbolic gloss "endings, exit" hints at the kind of question this figure suits, which is weak implied usage, but nothing tells the agent how to choose between Cauda Draconis and Caput Draconis or the other figures.

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