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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context the annotations lack: the endpoint, the '10 credits (Tier 1)' cost, and the group. It does not, however, describe the nature of the result beyond flavor.

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 short and the metadata block is tidy and scannable, but the front-loaded sentence carries no functional information, so the leading real estate is spent on flavor rather than purpose.

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 and full annotations, return values and safety need not be restated. What is missing is the core fact an agent needs — that this returns the 'Fortuna Minor' geomantic figure reading — making it hard to pick against the crowd of sibling geomancy tools.

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 params (fields, precision) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about them, which is the correct baseline when the schema already does the work.

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 opens with flavor text ('Lesser Fortune: quick gains') that essentially restates the title 'Fortuna Minor' without stating a verb or what the tool returns — presumably a geomantic figure reading. Nothing distinguishes it functionally from its many geomancy siblings such as astroway_geomancy_fortuna_major; only the group/endpoint metadata hints at context.

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 reference to alternatives despite ~14 sibling geomancy figure tools. The cost tier is metadata, not usage guidance.

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