Caput Draconis

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructInfo=false, idempotentHint=true) already establish the tool as safe and non-destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the symbolic meaning, which does not contradict annotations.

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 (2 lines including group and example), which is efficient for a simple concept. No superfluous text, but could add more substance without becoming verbose.

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?

Missing details about return values (no output schema), and the parameter example is empty. For a tool with many geomancy siblings, more context is needed to distinguish its output and usage.

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 schema has 100% coverage but the parameter description only says 'Raw JSON body — see the example in the tool description for required fields', and the given example is an empty object {}. This provides no meaningful guidance on what fields the body should contain.

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 'beginnings, threshold' and groups it under Geomancy (Agrippa), which hints at the symbolic meaning of the Caput Draconis figure. However, it lacks an explicit verb or action (e.g., 'returns interpretation of') and does not differentiate from sibling geomancy 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other geomancy figures like geomancy_cauda_draconis or geomancy_fortuna_major. The agent receives no context for selection.

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