get_direction_facts

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

Annotations already declare this a non-destructive, closed-world read. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: it returns evidence and candidates only, never scores, which sets expectations for how to consume the output. It stops there, saying nothing about cost, size, or determinism of the fused result.

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?

It is a single dense sentence with no padding, and the most useful fact (evidence/candidates but no scores) is placed last rather than front-loaded. The list of fused techniques dominates the sentence, which buries the output contract.

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 9-parameter tool with nested observer and participants objects, four enums, no output schema, and very low schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It does not explain how inputs like mountain, rollover, or per-participant branches shape the divination result, leaving the agent unable to reason about the tool's output.

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 only 22% across 9 parameters, so the description carries most of the burden, yet it never names or explains any parameter such as mountain, rollover, participants, noble_profile, or observer. The only enum that is documented (qimen_method) is explained in the schema, not here.

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 techniques it fuses (六壬完整式盘, 奇门, 贵人方, 斗柄, 可选七星, 本命), so the resource is identifiable, but it reads as a component checklist rather than a statement of what the tool delivers. It never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_qimen_chart or get_beidou_sky, which overlap heavily with two of the listed components.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. A reader cannot tell from the description when this combined tool should be preferred over the single-technique siblings get_qimen_chart or get_beidou_sky.

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