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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context — the POST endpoint and the 10-credit (Tier 1) cost per call — which helps an agent weigh invocation. It stops there, offering no notes on inputs needed, rate limits, or result characteristics.

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 metadata tags earning their place by conveying endpoint and cost. The opening keyword line is concise but semantically thin rather than wasteful.

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?

Structurally the gaps are small: an output schema exists so return values need no explanation, both parameters are documented, and annotations cover safety. What is missing is the semantic core — what a Coniunctio reading represents and when to request it instead of another figure — leaving the tool only minimally callable with confidence.

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%: `fields` and `precision` are both fully documented in the schema, including compact-mode syntax and rounding guidance. 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 a bare keyword list — "Union, meeting, partnership" — which is the symbolic meaning of the Coniunctio geomantic figure, not a statement of what the tool does. There is no verb and no indication that it returns a geomancy reading, so an agent must infer the operation from the name/title alone. It also does nothing to distinguish this from the 15 sibling geomancy figure tools.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer this figure over siblings like astroway_geomancy_puella or astroway_geomancy_via. The only context given is group/endpoint/cost metadata.

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