Bagua Life Areas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's added behavioral value is limited to the cost line (10 credits, Tier 1) and the 'Eastern-school' qualifier, which matters because other schools assign different sectors; it says nothing about output shape or computation basis.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and enumerates the nine life areas efficiently with no filler. The bracketed metadata block (group, endpoint, required, cost) is compact and separately scannable, though the 'Required' line duplicates the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but the input side is thin: for a 7-parameter tool with only 29% coverage, the description gives no hint about the role of date, gender, time, solarYear, or language. An agent must guess why birth data drives a compass-sector mapping, which is the main correctness risk here.

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 only 29%, so the description needs to carry the parameter burden and does not. It never explains why a birth date and gender are required for a sector mapping (presumably a personal gua/persona derivation via time and solarYear), leaving five undocumented parameters with no semantic help. The '[Required: date, gender]' line merely restates the schema's required array.

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?

States a specific resource (Eastern-school Bagua mapping) and the exact output content: nine named life areas projected onto compass sectors. An agent can tell this is a feng shui sector/life-area mapping rather than a kua, flying-star, or annual-star calculation, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus the closely related astroway_chinese_feng_shui_kua or astroway_chinese_feng_shui_lucky_directions tools, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance. The only orientation is the group tag and endpoint, which imply context but do not route the agent.

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