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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuine behavioral context beyond annotations: a cost of '10 credits (Tier 1)' and the endpoint POST /v1/geomancy/laetitia. It says nothing about auth, rate limits, or what the reading contains, but the cost disclosure is real added value.

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 definition is tight and front-loaded: the thematic keywords come first, then compact bracketed metadata. Every line earns its place (group, endpoint, cost), though the keyword-only opening leaves the core purpose underspecified.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and no parameters are required, so the calling mechanics are adequately covered by structured data. However, the description never conveys what the tool actually produces or when to reach for it, leaving a gap an agent must fill by inference.

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. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so the baseline 3 for schema-driven param documentation is appropriate.

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 ('Happiness, optimism, healing') with no verb stating what the tool does. The Group tag '[Group: Geomancy (Agrippa)]' and the name/title make it inferable that this returns the Laetitia geomancy figure, but the description itself never states the action or resource explicitly. It distinguishes the figure from siblings only via the name, not the description text.

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 when-to-use guidance, no condition for selecting Laetitia over the other fifteen geomancy figures, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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