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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint and a 10-credit Tier 1 cost, which is genuinely useful billing context, but says nothing about what the invocation returns or whether any inputs beyond formatting matter.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded, with no filler sentences. However, the one prose sentence conveys symbolic flavor rather than operational information, so brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being efficient communication.

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, so return values needn't be described, and the params are self-documenting. Still, the description never confirms what the tool produces (a geomancy figure reading) or how its output differs from the other figure endpoints, leaving an agent to guess from naming convention.

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) are fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, which is acceptable here since the schema carries the load.

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 'Young man, energy, impulse' restates the symbolic meaning of the Puer figure rather than stating what the tool does. It never says it computes or returns a geomancy figure/reading, so an agent must infer the operation from the name and title alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no differentiation from the ~15 sibling geomancy figure tools (puella, rubeus, albus, etc.). The mystical keywords imply a divinatory context but give no condition for choosing this figure over another.

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