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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — the endpoint and the 10-credit (Tier 1) cost — but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or response shape beyond what the output schema covers.

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?

Extremely terse: a keyword fragment followed by three bracketed metadata tags. Nothing is wasted and the meaning is front-loaded, but for a tool that never states an action, the brevity shades into under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 an entity that is read-only, idempotent, has no required parameters, fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description need not explain return values. What remains missing is the core statement of what the tool actually produces, so it is adequate-but-gapped rather than complete.

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 optional parameters (fields, precision), and their descriptions are detailed (dotted-path syntax, decimal rounding guidance). The description adds no parameter meaning, which is acceptable here since the schema carries the full burden; 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 semantic gloss of the figure's name ("Gain, profit, abundance") rather than a statement of what the tool does. There is no verb and no statement of the resource returned; an agent must infer from the name and the endpoint tag that this returns a geomancy reading for the Acquisitio figure. It is closer to a restatement of the title than a purpose statement.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the 14 sibling geomancy figures (albus, amissio, puer, rubeus, etc.), no prerequisites, no exclusions. The only implicitly useful cue is the group tag placing it in the Geomancy family, which helps a little but gives no selection criteria.

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