Puella — Girl

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as what data is returned or any 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 extremely short but not effectively structured. It lacks a clear explanation of the tool's function or required inputs, wasting the limited space on vague keywords.

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 tool is part of a large geomancy family with many sibling tools, the description lacks essential context about its purpose, output, and how it differs from others. The absence of an output schema further compounds the incompleteness.

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 parameter (body) with 100% description coverage. The description only points to an example request body that is empty, offering no additional meaning beyond the schema's raw JSON specification.

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 only provides poetic attributes ('Beauty, harmony, love') and a group label, but does not explicitly state that this tool interprets the Puella geomantic figure. The purpose is implied but vague.

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 usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool over its many sibling geomantic tools (e.g., geomancy_puer, geomancy_coniunctio).

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