I Ching Hexagram

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it uses birth data and returns hexagrams, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, error conditions). With reasonable annotation coverage, the description provides only minor additive value.

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 concise: one sentence plus metadata (group, cost). It is front-loaded and to the point. However, it lacks structure like headings or bullet points, which could improve scannability.

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 annotations and schema coverage, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks output format details and does not explain what 'gate' means or how the response is structured, which could be problematic without an output schema.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents each parameter. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only provides an example request. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns I Ching hexagrams based on Human Design wheel gates, which is specific. However, it does not differentiate from related sibling tools like iching_daily or iching_throw_coins, leaving ambiguity about which tool to use for typical I Ching queries.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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