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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, and an output schema exists, so the safety/return burden is covered. The description does add genuinely useful non-annotation context: the group provenance and the cost (10 credits, Tier 1), which matters for a metered API. It stops there, adding nothing about what the figure reading contains.

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 text is tightly sized and cleanly front-loaded (meaning first, then bracketed metadata tags), with no filler. It is short rather than bloated, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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 single-figure lookup tool the description should at minimum state what is returned and why an agent would pick Puella over puer or fortuna_major. Neither is present, and the sibling set offers no compensating signal. Annotations and the output schema soften the impact, but the core functional statement is 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%: both 'fields' (compact dotted-path projection) and 'precision' (decimal rounding) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 'Beauty, harmony, love' is the traditional meaning of the geomantic figure Puella, not a statement of what the tool does. It never says it returns a Puella figure reading, interpretation, or geomancy result, so an agent cannot infer the tool's operation from the text. It also fails to distinguish this figure tool from its 15 geomancy siblings (puer, albus, rubeus, etc.).

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 choosing Puella over the other 15 geomantic figure tools, and no prerequisites stated. The [Group: Geomancy (Agrippa)] tag only categorizes it; it does not route the agent.

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