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

Annotations already disclose that the tool is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and not open-world, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context by naming the group 'Geomancy (Agrippa)' and stating a cost of 10 credits (Tier 1), but it does not add further behavioral detail beyond that.

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 description is short and front-loads the thematic phrase before grouped metadata for group and cost. There is little wasted text, though the thematic phrase alone is not very informative.

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 and full parameter descriptions are present, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values or invocation mechanics. However, it remains thin on what the tool does and when to select it among many similar geomancy figure tools, leaving a meaningful contextual gap.

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 are fully described in the input schema. The description adds no parameter semantics of its own, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 gives the symbolic theme 'Loss, letting go, slipping away' but never states what the tool actually does, such as retrieve or interpret the Amissio geomancy figure. It largely restates the title 'Amissio: Loss' without adding an action verb or clear resource distinction from the many sibling geomancy figure tools.

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 is provided on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling geomancy tool to choose instead. The thematic phrase may imply a loss-related context, but this is not explicit enough to count as usage guidance.

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