Interpret Saju (Ten Gods, Yongshin, Daeun)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool produces a full interpretation with human-readable summaries but does not mention any performance, determinism, or other behavioral traits. However, it is not misleading.

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 sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Full Saju interpretation') and lists components. It is somewhat lengthy but efficient for the information conveyed.

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 lack of an output schema, the description compensates by detailing output components (Ten Gods, life stages, luck pillars, etc.) and language support. This provides sufficient context for an agent to understand 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the well-documented parameters (year, month, day, hour, gender, lang). 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 it performs a full Saju interpretation from a solar birthdate, listing specific components like Four Pillars, Ten Gods, hidden stems, etc. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as saju_calculate (basic pillars) and saju_compatibility (pair analysis).

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 implies it is the comprehensive interpretation tool. While not explicitly stating when to use alternatives, the tool name and sibling names provide clear context that this is for full readings vs. calculated pillars or compatibility.

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