Coniunctio: Conjunction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the transport (POST /v1/geomancy/coniunctio) and a concrete cost of 10 credits (Tier 1), which is real behavioral value for a metered API. It does not explain, however, what determines the output for a zero-input call.

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 keyword line is front-loaded and the bracketed metadata (group, endpoint, cost) is compact and scannable. Nothing is padded, though the description is thin rather than tight — a single semantic phrase carries the whole definition.

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-value explanation is not required, and annotations cover safety. What is missing is any statement of what the tool computes from no inputs (fixed figure interpretation? divination draw?) or how it should be sequenced within a geomancy reading, which for a keyword-only definition leaves a meaningful 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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The one thing an agent might want — whether any context (querent, question, seed) can or must be supplied — is left unstated, but the empty schema makes that unambiguous.

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 keywords for the geomancy figure Coniunctio ('Union, meeting, partnership') but never states what the tool actually does — no verb, no mention that it returns an interpretation of this figure. Combined with the title and the geomancy sibling family, an agent can infer the purpose, but the description itself only restates the figure's meaning rather than a function.

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 ~16 other geomancy figure tools (acquisitio, albus, puer, etc.), nor on whether figures are meant to be queried individually or as part of a full chart reading. The keywords hint at thematic relevance ('partnership') but no explicit usage condition is given.

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