Read a Saju fortune

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by telling the agent to read structuredContent, look for recommendations, use a deep one-call expert mode, and not search capability IDs first. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 compact and front-loaded with trigger phrases, then moves directly into the most important behavioral guidance. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetitive schema restating.

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 nested schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the key call-shaping details: when to invoke, what to read from the result, which detailLevel to use, and the no-capability-search workflow. The remaining gap is that with eight sibling tools, an explicit line about which sibling is NOT appropriate would make the choice fully unambiguous.

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 56%, so a meaningful share of parameter behavior is already documented in the schema, e.g., hour ambiguity, calendar defaults, and birthTimeAccuracy. The description adds a useful directive for detailLevel=expert, but it does not meaningfully enrich other parameters like asOfYear, timelineRange, or lifeEvents.

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?

Title and trigger list make clear this reads a Saju/운세 fortune: it covers 사주 봐줘, 운세 봐줘, 재물운, 사업운, 연애운, etc. The description is specific about the resource and intent, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling tools, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 gives explicit triggering conditions with concrete Korean examples and adds workflow guidance like using detailLevel=expert for a deep one-call analysis. It does not give when-not-to-use guidance or name which sibling tool to choose instead, so it stops short of a full routing contract.

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