Saju Compatibility (궁합)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return structure (overall score, breakdown components) but does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, or limitations. Since it is a computational tool with no destructive actions, this is adequate but minimal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose, output range, and breakdown components without any unnecessary words.

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 complex input (two nested objects) and no output schema, the description fully explains the return value: overall score and a breakdown of four components plus each person's Day Master and zodiac. This is complete for an agent to understand what the tool provides.

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 schema already provides descriptions for parameters (lang, person_a, person_b with full details). The description adds no new parameter-specific information beyond 'based on both people's Saju'. With high schema coverage (67%+), a baseline of 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 the tool computes a two-person compatibility score from 0-100, and specifies the return includes overall score and breakdown. It distinguishes from siblings that are about individual saju calculation or daily interpretation.

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 indicates the tool is for scoring two-person compatibility, implying use when needing compatibility between two individuals. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but context from sibling tools makes it evident.

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