Acquisitio — Gain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description need not repeat safety traits. The description adds the figure's meaning but no additional behavioral context (e.g., whether it requires a chart or returns static text). It does not contradict annotations, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (three lines) and includes a group label, which aids categorization. It is front-loaded with the figure's meaning. However, it could be more informative while remaining concise; the brevity risks being insufficient.

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 the lack of output schema and the single parameter, the description should explain what the tool returns and what the body input expects. It only states the figure's meaning and provides an empty example, leaving the tool's functional contract incomplete.

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 input schema has one required parameter 'body' described as 'Raw JSON body — see the example in the tool description for required fields'. The example is an empty object {}, providing minimal guidance. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent uncertain about what properties to include or what the body represents.

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 states the meaning of the geomantic figure Acquisitio as 'Gain, profit, abundance' and groups it under Geomancy (Agrippa), giving some context. However, it lacks a verb to indicate what the tool does (e.g., 'returns the interpretation'), and the purpose is not fully explicit. Among many geomancy sibling tools, this one is differentiated by its title, but the description is too vague to clearly distinguish its action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The sibling tools include many other geomantic figures, but the description offers no criteria for selection.

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