get_deep_reading

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns 'raw per-system output from the engine,' indicating a read operation, and mentions typo-tolerance for the system slug. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, requires authentication, or has rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose but then lists all 26 system slugs inline, making it verbose. The follow-up sentence about the PDF is useful but could be separated. Overall, it could be more concise by referencing a sibling tool or using a shorter list.

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?

The absence of an output schema and the lack of explanation about the return format leaves the agent uninformed about what to expect. Additionally, the term 'chart input' is ambiguous; the description does not clarify how year, month, day, etc., contribute to the chart. This makes the tool definition incomplete for complex usage.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description adds some value by listing valid system slugs, explaining typo-tolerance, and clarifying that lat/lon override location and time_known defaults. However, many parameters (year, month, day, hour, minute, lat, lon, timezone, lang) lack any description in both design, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 the tool's purpose: to get a focused reading for one specific divination system from 26. It specifies the required inputs (chart input plus system slug) and lists all possible system slugs, distinguishing it from siblings like list_26_systems and get_system_rules.

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 usage when you need a single system reading rather than the full PDF, referencing the PDF as an alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., when to use get_system_rules instead), nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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