Fortuna Major

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only operational metadata (10 credits, Tier 1, POST endpoint) and nothing about what the response contains or how the figure is contextualized.

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?

One-line meaning statement followed by bracketed metadata is efficiently front-loaded and wastes little. The slight redundancy between "Fortuna Major" and "Greater Fortune" costs a little precision but nothing in length.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and zero params mean no input guidance is missing. However, for a divination-figure lookup the description gives no sense of what the output represents or how the figure is meant to be applied in a reading, leaving the agent to guess at its role among the geomancy siblings.

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 no parameter semantics burden on the description. Baseline 4 applies; an empty input object needs no explanation.

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?

"Greater Fortune: lasting success" identifies the geomancy figure and gives its traditional meaning, but never states the action: it doesn't say the tool returns the Agrippa interpretation of that figure or how that content is shaped. The gloss is also largely a translation of the title, so an agent must infer from the endpoint path that this is a per-figure lookup.

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 statement of when to call this versus astroway_geomancy_fortuna_minor or the other 15 geomancy siblings, nor whether it belongs inside a larger reading (e.g., a generated shield chart). Only cost and endpoint metadata are provided.

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