asktian_name_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the output ('one-line vibe + dominant element guess') and implies it's quick and non-destructive. No contradictions or surprises. Could be slightly more explicit about the underlying mechanism or limitations, but sufficient.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and easy to parse.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers input, usage, and output. It could optionally detail the output format (e.g., 'vibe: ______, element: ______') but is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 adds context about what types of names are suitable (person, baby, company) but does not add technical details beyond the schema. Language parameter's enum is clear from schema.

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 does a 'Quick energetic profile of a name' and lists specific use cases (baby name, company name, 'what kind of person is X'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like asktian_best_time_for_action or asktian_compatibility which focus on timing and compatibility.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when the user asks about someone's name, a baby name, a company name, or 'what kind of person is X' when no birthdate is available.' This provides clear guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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