Marriage Line

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does add genuinely useful operational context: POST /v1/palmistry/marriage-line and 10 credits (Tier 1). However, it never explains what the reading is derived from — with zero input parameters it is unclear whether the response is generic interpretive text or requires prior chart context, which is a material omission for an agent.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, and the bracketed metadata (group, endpoint, cost) is compact and scannable rather than filler. The opening line is arguably too terse to earn its place as the sole purpose statement, but there is no padding.

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 a full output schema and clear annotations, the structural burden is low, and return values need not be explained. Still, in a catalog of hundreds of astrology tools, an agent needs to know what distinguishes this reading from the other four palmistry lines and relational tools, and that is absent.

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 4 baseline applies. The schema is an empty object and the description does not misleadingly imply inputs that don't exist.

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?

"Significant partnerships." is a topic fragment, not a verb+resource statement; it only expands on the title 'Marriage Line'. It gives a hint about the domain (relationships) but never says that it produces a palmistry marriage-line reading, and it does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like astroway_palmistry_heart_line or astroway_relational_synastry.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many relational/palmistry siblings. The only extra context is endpoint and credit cost, which does not help an agent decide whether to call this versus another reading.

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