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

With no annotations, the description takes on full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It details the output structure (calibrated answer first, then five sections), explicitly disclaims guaranteed predictions and mutual-confirmation, and mentions quota sharing ('daily quota is shared with completed divine readings'). This goes beyond minimal transparency, though it does not address potential side effects like determinism or result variation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by output structure and constraints. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff. The description is compact yet rich in 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?

Given the tool's complexity (combined divination, 6 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a clear picture of the return format, philosophical stance, and quota limit. It lacks explicit details on error handling or exact parameter behavior, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to set expectations. A minor gap is not specifying how the two traditions are combined or calibrated.

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 67%, leaving locale and method without descriptions (only enums). The description does not explain these parameters or the seed/device_id parameters. It only adds context around 'question' (calling it 'real question'), which is already described in the schema. The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('bring') with explicit resources ('I-Ching cast' and 'upright Waite-Smith Major Arcana card') and a clear output structure ('five grounded sections'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly combining two traditions, unlike cast_hexagram or cast_tarot which focus on one.

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 implies when to use this tool: when the user wants both an I-Ching cast and a Tarot card for the same real question, phrased as 'bring one real question to two independent symbolic traditions.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the intended use case.

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