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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds computational context beyond annotations: hidden-stem weighting and which outputs (dominant, weakest) are reported. 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?

Two short sentences front-load the core output and then give concrete example queries. No filler or repetition of schema 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 complex 15-parameter tool, the required input is clear from the schema and the description states the result semantics (weighted distribution, dominant/weakest). The presence of an output schema means return values don't need to be described; only marginal context such as typical use cases is absent, which is already covered.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 15 parameters. The description adds no parameter-level details, which is acceptable at the baseline.

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 exactly what the tool computes – Five Elements distribution with hidden-stem weighting, plus dominant and weakest element – so an agent can tell it handles element-balance queries. It doesn't explicitly compare itself to sibling tools, but the named terms (五行, dominant/weakest) are distinctive enough.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'which element am I missing' and '오행 분석'. It doesn't state exclusions or alternatives, but for a read-only analysis tool this is clear directional guidance.

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