Amissio: Loss

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description does add operationally useful facts beyond the annotations — the POST endpoint and a 10-credit Tier 1 cost — but says nothing about what the response contains or whether results are static.

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?

Three short fragments and a compact bracketed metadata block — front-loaded and waste-free. It is not padded, though the leading sentence is evocative rather than informative, which is a minor efficiency loss.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, and cost/endpoint/group are supplied. Still, for a tool in a family of figure-lookup siblings, the description never clarifies what distinguishes this call from its neighbors or how the agent should pick Amissio, leaving a real selection gap.

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 for a parameterless tool applies. The bracketed metadata does not conflict with the empty schema.

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 gives the figure's meaning ('Loss, letting go, slipping away') plus its group and endpoint, so an agent can infer this is the Amissio geomancy figure entry. However, it never states a verb or what the call actually produces — a lookup of the figure's interpretation versus a computed divination result is left to inference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the 15 sibling geomancy figure tools (acquisitio, laetitia, via, etc.) or versus broader chart tools. The only implicit signal is the figure name itself, which assumes the agent already knows geomancy figure selection criteria.

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