Acquisitio: Gain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the operational context the annotations lack: cost (10 credits, Tier 1), the POST endpoint, and the source system (Agrippa). It does not explain what a call produces or whether the result is static per figure, but the output schema covers return values.

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?

Very short and structured, with bracketed metadata lines making cost and endpoint easy to scan. The lead line is a keyword list rather than a purpose statement, which is a small structural weakness, but nothing is padded.

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?

Output schema and annotations carry the return and safety burden, so the description need not explain results. However, for a zero-param tool that is one of sixteen near-identical geomancy figure endpoints, the description omits the one thing only it can supply: why an agent would invoke Acquisitio rather than a sibling figure.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is trivially complete and consistent with the description's lack of input discussion.

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 offers only a keyword gloss of the figure's meaning ("Gain, profit, abundance") rather than stating what the tool does or returns. Combined with the name and the group/endpoint metadata, an agent can infer this is the Acquisitio geomancy figure endpoint, but the description itself adds no verb or result statement, and it does not distinguish this from the other 15 geomancy figure siblings.

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 is given. With sibling tools astroway_geomancy_albus, fortuna_major, amissio, etc., the agent gets no cue for choosing Acquisitio over another figure, nor any condition or question framing that would select it.

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