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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is currently free and rate-limited to 30 readings per client per day, but it does not explain output format, error handling, or other operational details.

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 description is front-loaded with the core action and mostly efficient. The sentence about being the oldest continuous Western divination tradition is somewhat promotional, but the rate-limit notice is practical and earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter consultation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage contexts, and rate limits well. It could be slightly more complete by hinting at what the interpretation output contains, but it is adequate for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already says about the 'question' parameter.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Consult Geomancy') and states exactly what the tool does: casts a full 16-figure shield chart and interprets it. It also identifies the divination system ('Ilm al-Raml, the Arabic Science of Sand), which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling tools like consult_tarot or consult_iching.

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?

It gives clear 'best for' contexts: structural diagnosis, practical matters, career, money, property, and health. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools for comparison.

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