Caput Draconis

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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful operational context: the Agrippa group, POST endpoint, and a 10-credit Tier 1 cost. It does not add further behavioral detail, but with an output schema present, that gap is limited.

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 very short and front-loaded, with the symbolic phrase first and structured metadata afterwards. It does not waste space, though the brevity is partially due to under-specification rather than exceptional economy.

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 tool with annotations and an output schema, much of the behavioral burden is already handled by structured fields. However, the description still does not explicitly state the tool's function or return context, so an agent must infer the purpose from the name and title.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and nothing in the definition complicates this.

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 restates the title ('Caput Draconis' → 'Dragon's Head') and adds symbolic keywords ('beginnings, threshold'), but never states an operation or what the tool actually does. It does not clarify whether it returns a geomancy figure description, an interpretation, or performs a divination, leaving the purpose essentially tautological.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling geomancy figure endpoints. The keywords hint at thematic relevance, but they do not tell an agent when this endpoint is the right choice or when it should be avoided.

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