yongshin_candidates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output (five methods and their candidates) and explicitly states what is excluded. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only (likely), any state changes, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a tool that likely performs a deterministic calculation, this is adequate but not thorough.

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: three sentences, zero fluff. The first sentence states the core functionality, the second clarifies limitations, and the third provides example use cases. Every sentence adds value.

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 has 9 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description is relatively brief. It does not explain the output structure beyond listing method names, nor does it describe how parameters affect results (though schema handles parameter details). For a complex Saju calculation tool, the description could provide more context about the derivation methods or expected output format. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides. It focuses solely on the output and usage context, which is acceptable since the schema is comprehensive.

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 the tool returns classical Yongshin candidates from five derivation methods, with explicit usage examples. It distinguishes itself from related tools by noting what it does NOT include (AI-selected final yongshin and confidence scores), making its 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?

The description explicitly states that the tool does not include AI-selected yongshin or confidence scores, and directs users to the full 24Plus service for those. It also provides example queries ('what are my yongshin candidates', 'which element favors me'), giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative sibling tools like eumyang_johu or gyeokguk, which could provide more specific methods.

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