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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: verdicts are Grade B and no aggregate score is produced, which sets expectations for output granularity. It says nothing about determinism, partial-input behavior, error handling, or what happens if the plan geometry is incomplete.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the core operation and then the specific checks, with the fusion caveat and output-quality caveat trailing. No filler; slightly dense with em-dash packing but every clause carries information.

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 6-parameter tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description gives the analysis scope and one output hint ('Grade B verdicts, no aggregate score') but not the shape of the returned verdicts. Adequate to select the tool, thin for anticipating its response.

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 coverage is 67%, so some parameters are documented in the schema (rotation_deg, sitting_index, birth_year, plan). The description adds meaning by tying the optional parameters to 'fusion with the Eight Mansions house stars and Ming Gua', but it never explains minggua_convention, the gender/birth_year pairing requirement, or what happens when only some optional fields are supplied.

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 names the concrete analysis performed (indoor form-sha from a floor-plan wireframe) and enumerates the three specific defects checked (穿堂煞, 缺角, 厕占中宫), which is far more specific than a name restatement. It is clearly distinct from flying_star_chart or kua_number in content, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings despite the overlapping Ming Gua / Eight Mansions fusion.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it has a floor-plan wireframe and wants form-school (shape) verdicts. The optional fusion clause hints at prerequisites for the extra parameters, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative for standalone Ming Gua work.

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