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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context in the form of the 10-credit Tier 1 cost and the Palmistry group, but nothing about output shape or limitations beyond that.

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, but it is under-specified rather than concise: the core sentence 'Career, life direction' is too thin to convey the tool's function, and the metadata lines carry more usable information than the description itself.

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?

The tool has an output schema and annotations covering safety, so return values and permissions need not be described. However, for a palmistry reading tool with four sibling line tools, the description fails to explain the purpose or differentiate it from alternatives, leaving the agent without enough context to select it confidently.

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. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 phrase 'Career, life direction' only gestures at the fate line's domain meaning; it states no verb or resource and never says what the tool returns or does. An agent cannot distinguish this from sibling palmistry line tools (head_line, heart_line, life_line) without opening each definition.

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 prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The only contextual clues are the group label and credit cost, which do not tell the 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.