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, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuine piece of behavioral context — the 10-credit (Tier 1) cost — plus the group tag, but says nothing about response behavior or interpretation depth.

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 brief and free of filler sentences, but the sole content line is a keyword gloss that does not earn its place as functional documentation. Shortness here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, but the description still omits the most basic fact an agent needs: what invoking this tool produces and in what context to invoke it. For a domain-specific divination tool surrounded by many near-identical siblings, this is a significant 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%, so both optional parameters (fields, precision) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the burden.

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 meaning of the Coniunctio figure ("Union, meeting, partnership") but never states what the tool actually does — no verb, no resource, no indication that it returns a geomancy reading. It reads as a glossary gloss of the name rather than a functional description, so an agent cannot distinguish its operation from the other fifteen geomancy figure siblings beyond the keyword.

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 guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling geomancy figures. The only extra context is group/cost metadata, which does not tell an agent when this tool 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.