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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and group context, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as what the returned data represents.

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 very short, front-loaded with the figure's meaning, and includes no filler. Its only weakness is that the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient completeness.

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, annotations are rich, and both parameters are fully described, so the description need not cover return values or parameter syntax. However, it still fails to state the tool's purpose or usage context, leaving the agent to infer the operation from the name and title.

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%, so both optional parameters (fields and precision) are fully documented by the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 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 restates the title ('Dragon's Head') and adds symbolic keywords ('beginnings, threshold') but provides no action verb or statement of what the tool actually does. It does identify the specific geomancy figure among siblings, but stops short of explaining the operation.

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 given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as other geomancy figures or contextual reading tools. The group and cost metadata are present but do not tell an agent when this figure is the right choice.

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