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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds a non-guarantee disclaimer about health/luck/money and a privacy note that the layout text is not stored, which is useful context beyond annotations. No response format details are added, but an output schema exists.

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?

Four short sentences with the purpose front-loaded. 'Suggests practical placement' is slightly redundant with the first sentence, and 'The description is not stored' is terse but functional. No fluff overall.

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?

Output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety signals. The description adds privacy and non-guarantee context, giving an agent enough to invoke correctly. Missing notes on how layout text is processed or length limits, but the schema handles those constraints.

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 67% (facing and layout are described, room is not). The description only restates the inputs ('a room, its layout and facing') without adding syntax, format, or enum meaning, so it adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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?

States the resource ('feng shui tips for a room') and the action ('Suggests practical placement') plus the key inputs ('layout and facing'). An agent can tell exactly what the tool does; sibling tools are unrelated so no differentiation is needed.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are provided. Usage is only implied by the purpose: the tool is for getting feng shui tips when a room, layout, and facing are available.

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