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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful operational context beyond annotations, chiefly the cost (10 credits, Tier 1), group, and endpoint, but does not cover auth, rate limits, or return behavior.

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 definition is extremely concise and well structured: thematic meaning first, then bracketed group, endpoint, and cost. Every element earns its place with no filler.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description need not explain return values. It supplies cost, endpoint, group, and thematic meaning, but still lacks explicit usage guidance and a clear statement of what the tool does operationally.

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 fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, 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 gives thematic keywords ('Restriction, confinement, isolation') for the Carcer figure, but no verb or explicit statement of operation. The bracketed group and endpoint imply it is the Carcer geomancy endpoint, so the purpose is inferable rather than clearly stated.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives among the many geomancy sibling tools. The thematic keywords faintly imply a use case, but nothing tells an agent when to select this over another figure.

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