Heart Line

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., what the tool returns, required inputs beyond the body). With annotations covering the core safety, a score of 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 extremely concise with two short sentences plus group and example. No fluff, but it is under-specified. Efficiency scored high, but substance lacks.

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 has a nested object parameter, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what data the body requires, what the tool returns, or how to use it effectively.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter 'body', but its description is vague ('Raw JSON body — see the example in the tool description for required fields'). The tool description only provides an empty example '{}', offering no meaning beyond the schema. The description fails to clarify what fields the body should contain, making it less than the baseline of 3.

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 tool name 'palmistry_heart_line' and title 'Heart Line' clearly indicate the subject. The description 'Emotional life, romance' matches the common interpretation of the heart line in palmistry, and it is distinct from other palmistry tools (fate, head, life, marriage lines) listed among siblings.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other palmistry lines or alternatives. The group label 'Palmistry (Cheiro)' provides minimal context but no exclusion criteria or situational advice.

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