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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds educational context about what trigrams represent, which helps an agent understand the output's semantic value, but it does not describe pagination, response shape, or any limitations beyond that. Score reflects modest added context beyond annotations.

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 concise, front-loads the core purpose, and the second half adds useful context about how trigrams relate to hexagrams. Every sentence contributes, and it's not bloated.

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 simple read-only list tool with 0 required params and no output schema, the description and schema cover the needed basics. It doesn't describe the return value shape, but given the simplicity of 'all 8 trigrams' and full parameter documentation, this is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents lang and compact parameters, including defaults and compact shape behavior. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves all 8 I-Ching trigrams and identifies them as fundamental building blocks of hexagrams, distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve hexagrams, casts, or specific trigram IDs. The verb 'Retrieve' with the resource 'all 8 I-Ching trigrams' is specific and non-tautological.

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 explains the conceptual role of trigrams in hexagram interpretation but does not explicitly say when to use this tool over siblings like get_iching_trigrams_id or get_iching_hexagrams. Context implies a general reference use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or alternative routing.

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