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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes the bulk nature, stricter rate limit, and license/attribution requirement with a URL. This is useful for an agent invoking the tool.

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 remarkably concise, with two short sentences covering purpose, usage, constraints, and licensing. Every sentence earns its place, and key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 has only one optional parameter, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers all necessary ground: bulk nature, rate limits, ordering options, defaults, and licensing terms. It leaves no meaningful gaps for the agent to worry about.

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 already documents the 'order' parameter with 100% coverage, including the allowed values and default. The description repeats the enum values and default, adding little new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 clearly states it returns the full 64-hexagram dataset in one call, using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('all hexagrams'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the bulk nature and full dataset scope.

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 clear usage context: use this when you need the entire dataset in a single bulk call. It also warns about a stricter rate limit, which helps the agent decide when to use this tool versus more granular alternatives, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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