Fortuna Major

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=true, idempotent, not destructive, so safety is clear. The description adds the meaning of the figure but no additional behavioral traits like output format or side effects.

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 concise (two lines plus example) and front-loaded with the meaning. However, the example is incomplete, and the structure is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 complexity (many geomancy tools, nested object parameter, no output schema), the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to structure the request properly, or any contextual cues.

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 merely points to an example in the tool description, which only shows an empty object. The description fails to clarify what fields the 'body' parameter requires.

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 provides a tagline 'Greater Fortune — lasting success' which vaguely suggests the tool returns an interpretation of the Fortuna Major geomantic figure, but it does not explicitly state what the tool does. Among many geomancy siblings, it lacks differentiation beyond the name.

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, what context necessitates it, or alternatives are mentioned. The description gives no usage direction.

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