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

The annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: live pricing rather than cached or remembered figures, individually generated reports rather than templates, and explicit non-divination boundary. This helps the agent set accurate user expectations and avoids misleading claims.

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 front-loaded with the overall purpose, then adds service context, behavioral caveats, pricing freshness, and usage triggers. Every sentence contributes distinct, useful information with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool returns, how the service works, key boundaries, pricing freshness, and when to use it. Nothing essential is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameters to clarify. The description appropriately does not invent parameter guidance. This matches the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 a specific verb and resource: it 'Returns full details of the Ifá Discovery personal discovery report' and enumerates exactly what is covered (contents, price, delivery, intake, gifting/redeeming, inclusions/exclusions). This clearly distinguishes it from the blog-article sibling 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?

The description explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use when someone asks about Yorùbá cosmology orientation, Orisha energies, Egbe, gifting a reading, or how to begin exploring Ifá tradition.' It also states service boundaries ('It is not divination and does not replace consultation with a qualified Babalawo or Iyanifa'). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool such as getting a blog article, so it falls just short of a 5.

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