Lucky / Unlucky Directions

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description usefully adds cost (10 credits) and required inputs, but it does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or return behavior; the output schema covers the latter, so this is adequate but thin beyond annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by compact metadata lines for group, endpoint, required fields, and cost. There is no wasted prose, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

For a seven-parameter tool with low schema description coverage, the description is too sparse: it leaves the meaning of key optional parameters and the exact interpretation of date unclear. The output schema and annotations cover return and safety behavior, but input semantics remain incomplete.

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 low (29%) across seven parameters, yet the description only repeats that date and gender are required. It does not clarify whether date is a birth date or a query date, nor does it explain the roles of time, language, solarYear, timezone, or timezoneOffset, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 states that the tool returns four lucky and four unlucky compass directions derived from Kua using standard Pa Kua mapping. This is a specific resource and method, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as astroway_chinese_feng_shui_kua or astroway_chinese_feng_shui_bagua.

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 says the output comes 'from Kua' and lists required date/gender, which implies the input basis, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives. An agent must infer whether to call this versus the Kua or Bagua tools.

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