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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations don't carry — cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and group membership — but says nothing about what the call produces or requires.

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-loaded, with the cost/group tags being the only structured metadata. However, the brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficient information density — the two fragments earn their place but carry very little.

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?

For a divination tool in a crowded geomancy family with an output schema, the agent still cannot tell what this tool returns, what makes it distinct from fortuna_major, or what situation calls for it. The output schema covers return values, but the invocation context is largely missing.

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% for both 'fields' and 'precision', so the schema fully documents the parameters. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline of 3 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 names the figure and gives an interpretation gloss ('Lesser Fortune: quick gains'), but never states what the tool actually does — no verb like 'returns/draws/casts a reading'. It also fails to distinguish itself from the sibling astroway_geomancy_fortuna_major, which it most needs to be differentiated from.

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 the fifteen other geomancy figure siblings or fortuna_major. Usage is only implied by the figure name, and no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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