Find a calculation method

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

The annotations already signal a safe, read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds scope context by separating specialized method selection from ordinary fortune reading, but it does not describe the actual operation, outputs, or any edge behavior beyond that.

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 two sentences, each purposeful and immediately front-loaded with the trigger condition and a clear exclusion. The long list of domains is efficient because it defines the tool's full intended scope.

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 that the schema is simple, annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete for an agent. The only real gap is the lack of direct parameter guidance, but the domain list and exclusion statement make the intended use sufficiently clear.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain the parameters, and it partially does: the long list of system types hints at what the 'systems' parameter can contain and 'specialized question' hints at the query. However, it never mentions 'limit' nor explicitly maps the systems list to the schema property, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 states a clear action: find a calculation method that fits a specialized question, while enumerating the covered systems. It differentiates itself from ordinary fortune reading, which is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like legend_saju_read_fortune.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when a user asks which ... calculation method fits' and gives a when-not: 'Do not use it for an ordinary fortune reading.' This gives clear positive and negative selection criteria, even though it does not name the exact alternative tool.

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