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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it usefully discloses determinism ('static canon data — deterministic') and cost ('Costs 1 call'). It does not say how the two optional parameters interact, what happens on an unmatched name, or how errors surface.

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?

Front-loaded and dense: canon scope first, then input modes, then behavioral notes. The 'Ratified Kairos' Council ... ratified 2026-07-19' phrasing is slightly redundant world-building, but nearly every clause carries information.

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 no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the return payload (template assignment, one-line historical argument, parameterization, primary forge). The remaining gap is a missing statement on the zero-required-parameter case.

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 the schema already documents both parameters and their examples. The description restates the same figure/template semantics and formats (T1–T9) without adding meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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?

States the resource precisely (a ratified canon of 9 signature templates and 35 carrier figures) and what a lookup returns for each input mode. It does not name a sibling or explain how it differs from the astrology/numerology tools it sits beside, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The two input modes imply usage (figure for one record, template for a template plus carriers), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no note on what happens with neither/both parameters, and no routing versus the sibling tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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