Daily I Ching

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description reinforces this with "deterministic" and adds genuinely new operational context — endpoint path and a 10-credit (Tier 1) cost — but says nothing about what the response contains or how date omission is handled.

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 functional sentence is one line and front-loaded, with the bracketed group/endpoint/cost metadata clearly delimited. Efficient overall, though the group label duplicates information already in the tool name prefix.

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 and annotations cover the safety profile, so the bar is modest, and cost disclosure is a useful addition. The remaining gap is real: for a date-parameterized tool, the accepted date format and the default when `date` is omitted are essential calling details that are absent everywhere.

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 0% for the single `date` parameter, so the description carries the burden and fails to compensate: no format (ISO vs. other), no timezone, and no statement that `date` is optional (required count is 0), which strongly implies a default-to-today behavior an agent must know about.

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 phrase "deterministic per-date hexagram" identifies the resource (a hexagram) and its scope (a single date, repeatable result), so the core purpose is inferable. However, there is no verb and no differentiation from the four sibling I Ching tools (throw_coins, by_question, lookup_number, with_changing_lines), which an agent would need to pick correctly.

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?

Nothing states when to use this versus astroway_iching_throw_coins or astroway_iching_by_question. The word "daily" in name and title implies a date-driven daily reading, but the description never says so explicitly or offers any exclusion criteria.

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