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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description block adds genuinely useful non-annotation context in the cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and required-input line, but says nothing about how the mapping is computed or what a 'sector' assignment implies.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that delivers the core meaning with no filler. The parenthetical enumeration of all nine life areas is long but is the substance of the tool rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description adequately frames what is produced. What is missing for a nine-parameter, paid computation tool is any pointer on when this reading is the right one versus the sibling feng-shui tools, leaving the agent to guess from names alone.

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 only 44% across nine parameters, and the description does not compensate: it restates the two required inputs already declared in the schema's required array and adds no meaning for time, language, precision, solarYear, timezone or timezoneOffset. A low-coverage schema needed help here and did not get it.

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 a specific resource (Bagua mapping of nine named life areas onto compass sectors) and pins the school ('Eastern-school'), which separates it from the kua and flying-star siblings. It never names a sibling it should not be confused with, and the verb is implicit ('mapping') rather than an action, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance and no routing against the four closest siblings (feng_shui_kua, lucky_directions, flying_star, annual_stars). The only contextual facts, required date/gender and 10-credit cost, come from the metadata lines rather than usage direction.

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