I Ching Reading (Legge text)

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description goes further by disclosing the exact content returned and the interpretive rule used to select texts for each count of changing lines. It omits any note on credits cost or failure modes, but the substantive behavioral detail is well beyond the 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then a single dense parenthetical that maps each changing-line count to its texts. The seven-case enumeration is long but each clause carries distinct information an agent could not infer, so it earns its length despite being one sprawling sentence.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, yet the description still explains what the reading contains and how `focus` is derived, which is genuinely useful for interpretation. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation — nothing tells the agent why to choose this over astroway_iching_with_changing_lines or astroway_esoteric_iching.

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 coverage is 100%, so the three optional inputs (seed, lines, question) are already fully documented in the schema, and the description adds nothing about them. The lengthy Zhu Xi enumeration actually explains the output `focus` field rather than any input, so it earns no parameter credit.

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 verb and resource ('A full reading in Legge's public-domain translation') and enumerates exactly what the reading contains: the primary hexagram's judgment, each changing line's text, the resulting hexagram, and the `focus` selection. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as astroway_iching_with_changing_lines or astroway_esoteric_iching, so an agent cannot rule those out from this text alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: the schema notes that a seed mirrors /iching/throw-coins and a question mirrors /iching/by-question, which hints at when this tool is a superset, but the description never says when to pick this over those siblings or over the with_changing_lines variant. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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