Analyze a Korean name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by stating a concrete behavioral contract: it keeps legal Hanja observations, declared stroke standards, and birth-name guidance separate. This is beyond the annotations and is useful for setting agent expectations about how the tool organizes its output.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core usage instruction and then a precise behavioral note. Every sentence contributes meaning and there is no redundancy.

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 (nested name/birth objects and many optional parameters), the description provides the right high-level guidance without duplicating the schema. The output schema and numerous parameter descriptions cover invocation details, although the sparse coverage of some stroke parameters keeps this from a 5.

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 50%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters like givenStrokes and surnameStrokes. It does not mention any parameter names, types, or composition rules beyond general domain keywords. The schema itself carries most of the parameter burden, but half of the parameters remain not described.

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 a specific verb ('Use this for') and lists concrete question types: 작명, 성명학, 81순, 이름 한자, 인명용 한자, 획수, and 파자. It also explains what the tool separates (legal Hanja observations, declared stroke standards, and birth-based naming guidance), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like compatibility or fortune reading.

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 opening phrase 'Use this for' gives an explicit when-to-use instruction, and the listed Korean keywords define the exact domain. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to an alternative sibling, so it stops short of a full when-not/alternative guide.

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