Tristitia: Sorrow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful operational context (cost: 10 credits, Tier 1; endpoint method) but does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or what the operation actually computes. The POST endpoint does not contradict readOnlyHint because computational endpoints commonly use POST.

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 short and front-loaded, with structured metadata lines for group, endpoint, and cost. The three emotional synonyms are somewhat redundant, but there is little wasted text overall.

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?

Given zero parameters, rich safety annotations, and an output schema, the description has a low burden. However, it still leaves the core operation implicit: an agent must infer from the name and group that this is a geomancy figure reference/interpretation endpoint. In a sibling set with fifteen other geomancy figure tools, that missing action statement is 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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters to document, and the description does not introduce any misleading parameter requirements.

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 only emotional associations ("Sadness, depression, melancholy") that restate the title "Tristitia: Sorrow." It never states the action or resource, e.g. that invoking this returns the meaning or interpretation of the Tristitia geomancy figure. The Group/Endpoint/Cost lines are metadata, not purpose, and do not distinguish it from the many sibling geomancy figure tools.

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 other geomancy figure tools or other divination endpoints. The group label "Geomancy (Agrippa)" gives minimal implied context, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing instructions.

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