Interpret a dream from audited traditions

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explains the scope: it handles five cross-culturally audited concepts and returns shared motifs plus conflicting conditions with primary-source excerpts. It also explicitly discloses a serious limitation—it does not turn the remaining raw corpus into invented meanings—which is valuable behavioral context for an agent.

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, front-loads the primary use case, and includes only high-signal constraints about scope and hallucination avoidance. Every sentence provides useful guidance, with no filler or 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 rich input schema, annotations, and output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what it returns, and how far its coverage extends, and the parameter and output details are already handled by the structured schema.

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 high at 86%, and the schema already explains most parameters including dream, question, outputMode, detailLevel, and dreamContext. The description itself does not add parameter-level semantics, but it does not need to because the schema carries the load; only maxDreamMatches remains undocumented.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: interpreting dreams via Korean-specific terms (해몽, 꿈풀이) and English, and specifies the output type: shared motifs and conflicting conditions with primary-source excerpts. This distinguishes it from the sibling fortune, name analysis, and date-selection tools without ambiguity.

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 opens with 'Use this for 해몽, 꿈풀이, or dream interpretation,' giving explicit when-to-use guidance for the target scenario. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or exclusion conditions, but the intended use case is clear enough for an agent to route dream-interpretation requests correctly.

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