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 fully covered elsewhere. The description's only added disclosure is the endpoint path and the 10-credit cost, which is mildly useful but says nothing about behavior, permissions, or result shape.

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, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy: the single content sentence is a keyword list and the rest is bracketed metadata. There is nothing front-loaded that helps an agent decide or invoke.

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 explained, and the schema documents parameters fully. What remains missing is the tool's actual function and its relationship to the many sibling geomancy figures, which is the core information an agent needs here.

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 thoroughly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, 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?

"Movement, change, journey" is a keyword gloss on the geomantic figure Via, not a statement of what the tool does or returns. It never uses a verb or names a resource, so an agent cannot tell whether this computes a chart, looks up a figure, or returns a reading.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance at all, despite 16 sibling geomancy tools (acquisitio, albus, puer, etc.) that an agent must choose between. Nothing routes the agent to or away from this figure.

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