Daily I Ching

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds 'Deterministic per-date', which confirms idempotency and specifies that the output depends only on the date. No behavioral contradictions, but no additional disclosure of what the output contains or error handling.

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 extremely concise—two sentences plus a group label. Every word is necessary: 'Deterministic per-date hexagram' is packed with meaning. No fluff or irrelevant details.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description should at least hint at the return value (e.g., hexagram number, trigrams, interpretation). It doesn't, leaving the agent to guess the output format. Annotations provide safety profile but not completeness about what the tool returns.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the 'date' parameter (just a type string). The description provides an example body '{"date":"..."}' but does not specify format (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD) or constraints. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate more but only gives a minimal example.

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 'Deterministic per-date hexagram' clearly states that this tool returns a hexagram based on a date, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'iching_by_question' (question-based) and 'iching_throw_coins' (coin-throwing). The verb 'hexagram' and qualifier 'per-date' make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'iching_by_question' or 'iching_throw_coins'. The only context is '[Group: I Ching (Standalone)]', which implies it's a standalone daily tool but doesn't help an agent choose among similar I Ching tools.

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