Fortuna Minor

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, establishing safety. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., output format, side effects) but does not contradict annotations. Minimal value added beyond structured data.

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?

Extremely concise (two short lines plus example), but at the expense of clarity. The group annotation in brackets is useful, but the description lacks a proper sentence structure and front-loads a cryptic phrase.

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 large set of sibling geomancy tools, a single parameter, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the body should be structured (beyond empty example), or how to integrate it into a geomancy reading flow.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the lone 'body' parameter, which already describes it as raw JSON. The description provides an empty example ('{}') but does not clarify required fields or structure. Baseline 3 applies; the example is marginally helpful but not sufficient.

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?

Description 'Lesser Fortune — quick gains' restates the title and gives a vague outcome but no explicit verb-resource statement. It fails to clarify what the tool does (e.g., interpret the figure, provide a reading). Sibling tools like geomancy_fortuna_major likely have similar descriptions, offering no differentiation.

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 the many other geomancy tools. No mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives. The implied use from the name and group is insufficient.

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