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

Annotations already cover the important behavioral profile: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the 'classical rules' framing and output contents but no additional behavioral caveats such as handling unknown birth times or limitations. No contradiction with 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 two sentences, front-loads the tool's output, and then gives targeted query examples. There is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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?

Given the rich input schema, strong annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core user intent well. The only notable gap is not naming or disambiguating against sibling chart tools, but the description is otherwise sufficient for a read-only lookup tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage across all 15 parameters, including legacy alternatives like 'gender' and 'option1'. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 names the specific resource (gyeokguk chart structure) and lists concrete outputs: named pattern, grade, body strength, sub-patterns, and the elements behind the judgment. It is clear and actionable, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like saju_chart or ohaeng_balance.

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 gives explicit use-case examples in both English and Korean ('what is my chart pattern', '내 격국'), which helps an agent select the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for comparison.

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