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 covered. The description usefully adds the endpoint path and cost (10 credits, Tier 1), which is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from annotations. It does not contradict anything, but discloses nothing further about 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 text is short and front-loads the figure's meaning, with metadata tags on separate lines. Nothing is padded, but the substantive description is a single clause followed by bookkeeping lines, so there is little structure to reward.

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 rich annotations, the description need not explain returns or safety. It covers endpoint and cost but omits what the tool actually produces or when it should be chosen over sibling geomancy tools, leaving the core functional statement absent.

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?

Both parameters (fields, precision) have 100% schema description coverage with detailed usage notes. The description adds nothing about them, but that is acceptable since the schema already does the work — 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 is essentially a restatement of the title: 'Fortuna Major' is glossed as 'Greater Fortune: lasting success.' It gives the figure's divinatory meaning but never states a verb or what the tool actually does (e.g., return a geomancy reading for the Fortuna Major figure). An agent must infer the function from the name and the '[Group: Geomancy]' tag.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as astroway_geomancy_fortuna_minor or the other fifteen geomancy figure tools. The group tag hints at a category but provides no selection criteria or exclusions.

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