Albus: White

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context absent from structured fields: the POST endpoint and a cost of 10 credits (Tier 1), plus the Agrippa source system. It says nothing about what the payload contains, though the output schema exists.

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?

It is extremely short and front-loads the figure's keywords, then the structured metadata lines. Nothing is wasted, but the terseness crosses into under-specification: the one substantive sentence conveys flavor, not actionable 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?

For a zero-parameter lookup with an output schema and cost metadata, the agent still cannot tell what a call actually returns (a figure description, a divination result, an Agrippa commentary). The endpoint, cost and group tags are covered, but the core contract is missing.

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 schema is an empty object with zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No missing parameter context penalizes it.

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 text 'Wisdom, peace, clarity' restates the symbolic meaning of the Albus geomancy figure named in the title rather than stating what the tool does (e.g., 'returns the Agrippa interpretation of the Albus figure'). There is no verb and no distinction from the other fourteen geomancy siblings beyond the figure name carried in the tool title.

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?

Nothing tells the agent when to retrieve Albus rather than Acquisitio, Laetitia, or any other geomancy figure, nor whether a question or context is needed. Only the '[Group: Geomancy (Agrippa)]' tag implies the retrieval domain; usage is entirely inferred.

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