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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description stays consistent while adding context the annotations cannot carry: it always reflects live site pricing so cached figures must not be used, and it explicitly disclaims divinatory behavior (no Odù casting, no Odù determination) to prevent the agent from implying otherwise. That is exactly the kind of semantic guardrail a description should supply.

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 first sentence front-loads exactly what is returned, followed in order by usage triggers, exclusions with named alternatives, a semantic boundary, and a data-freshness note. It is slightly long because of the enumeration of returned fields and the boundary clause, but every sentence carries routing or safety value and none is filler.

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?

For a no-parameter, read-only, idempotent lookup with no output schema, the description covers the full return content, the usage and exclusion conditions, the conceptual limits of the service, and the live-pricing constraint. An agent has everything it needs to decide whether to call it and what to expect back.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the description correctly never implies any inputs are needed, so there is no parameter gap to compensate for. The baseline for a parameterless schema is 4; nothing further is required or missing here.

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 a specific verb (returns) and resource (full details of the Ifá Discovery report) and enumerates the constituents: contents, price, delivery time, intake process, gifting/redemption, and service boundaries. Distinguishes itself explicitly from the blog sibling tools, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers (user asks about the service, report, pricing, purchasing, gifting, redeeming, access) and an explicit when-not-to-use exclusion (educational questions about Ifá, Yorùbá cosmology, Orí, Egbé Òrun, Òrìṣà), naming list_blog_articles and get_blog_article as the correct alternatives. Nothing is left to inference.

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