saju_chart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully describe behavioral traits. It only states what the tool returns, not whether it has side effects, requires special permissions, or imposes limits. As a read-only chart calculator, it likely has no destructive behavior, but this is not explicitly stated, leaving the agent uninformed.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then details outputs and examples. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words, though it could be more compact.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a good overview of the return structure (pillars, Ten Gods, etc.). It misses specifics on output format or field names, but the listed elements are sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role as the foundational chart.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds little beyond restating the '1230 for unknown time' convention and summarizing the tool's purpose. It meets the baseline for high coverage but does not compensate for any missing nuances.

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 identifies the tool as a Korean Saju natal chart calculator, listing the specific outputs (four pillars, Ten Gods, element ratios, Spirit Stars, Twelve Life Stages). It provides example queries and distinguishes itself as 'the foundational reading other tools build on,' effectively differentiating it from sibling tools.

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 gives clear usage examples and states what the tool is for ('Use for ...'). However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer from the tool names.

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