get_general_fortune

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and adds the 'for everyone' scope, but it does not disclose any limitations, potential side effects, or output format nuances beyond what the schema already captures. This is adequate for a simple, non-destructive get tool but lacks depth.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and scope, making it easy to parse, and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 is simple (two optional params, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It captures the core purpose and scope, and the output schema covers return values. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools and any note about when to use it over those, which would make it fully complete.

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 100%, with both parameters (format and forecast_day) fully described in the schema. The description merely reinforces the forecast_day parameter ('based on the forecast day') without adding syntax or behavior details, so it adds no meaningful value over the schema.

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 ('Get') and resource ('general fortune') and clarifies scope ('for everyone'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools likely focused on individual or date-of-birth-specific fortunes. This is a clear, non-ambiguous purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does without contextualizing its role relative to the sibling tools.

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