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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive lookup behavior, and the description adds that interpretations combine traditional and psychological views with situation-by-situation meanings. However, 'Text is in Korean' is in tension with the lang enum that permits English answers, so output-language behavior is not fully clear.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the topic range is conveyed compactly, though the long parenthetical topic list and overlapping keyword examples add bulk. Most sentences still carry useful scope 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 simple read-only lookup with no output schema, the description gives enough on topic coverage, interpretation lenses, and situation-by-situation output to call it correctly. It leaves some gaps around unknown-topic behavior and output-language consistency.

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 both topic and lang are already documented. The description adds only matching hints such as 'English slug or Korean keyword' that largely overlap with the schema examples, and it does not clarify the lang parameter.

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 operation, interpretation, and resource, dream topics, and scopes it to Korean traditional dream reading plus a psychological view. The listed topics and Korean/English keyword forms make it distinguishable from the sibling saju and zodiac fortune tools even without naming them.

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?

It implies use for dream-topic interpretation and gives matching guidance for the topic parameter, but never explicitly states when to choose it over the fortune/saju siblings or what to do for unknown topics. There are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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