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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only analysis, whether it has side effects, what permissions might be required, rate limits, or what the output format will be. For a complex 9-parameter tool with no annotations, this complete lack of behavioral information is inadequate.

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 (one phrase in parentheses) but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's not verbose, it fails to provide the essential context needed for a complex tool. The structure doesn't front-load the most critical information about what the tool actually does.

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?

For a complex tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose, behavioral characteristics, output format, or parameter interdependencies. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without extensive trial and error or external knowledge about Korean astrology systems.

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 description lists analysis types that correspond to the 'analysisType' parameter values, adding some context beyond the schema's enum descriptions. However, with 67% schema description coverage and 9 total parameters, the description doesn't explain the relationships between parameters (e.g., that 'fortuneType' is only relevant when 'analysisType' is 'fortune'). It provides minimal value over what's already in the schema descriptions.

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 '사주 분석 통합 (basic/fortune/yongsin/school_compare/yongsin_method)' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'analyze_saju' with a list of analysis types. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., 'performs Korean astrology analysis' or 'calculates and interprets four pillars of destiny'). The list of analysis types provides some differentiation from siblings, but the core purpose remains vague.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. While the description lists analysis types, it doesn't explain when to choose 'basic' vs 'fortune' vs other types, or how this comprehensive analysis tool relates to specialized siblings like 'get_daily_fortune' or 'get_fortune_by_period'. The agent must infer usage from parameter names alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does at a high level without revealing any behavioral traits: no information about what the analysis returns, whether it's deterministic or probabilistic, if it requires external data, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. This leaves the agent completely in the dark about how the tool behaves.

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 with just four Korean characters. While severely under-specified, it's not wordy or repetitive. Every character serves the core purpose statement, making it maximally efficient in terms of word count.

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 complexity (2 nested objects with 10 total properties), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, what the analysis methodology is, or provide any context about the parameters. For a tool with this level of complexity, the description fails to provide necessary contextual information.

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 0%, meaning none of the parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about any parameters - it doesn't mention birth dates, times, calendars, gender, or any of the 10 nested properties. The agent must infer parameter meanings solely from property names like 'birthDate' and 'gender' without any semantic context from the description.

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 '두 사람 궁합 분석' (Two people compatibility analysis) states the general purpose but is vague about what type of compatibility is being analyzed (astrological, personality, etc.) and doesn't specify the method or domain. It doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like 'analyze_saju' which might be related. The description restates the tool name concept without adding specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_saju' or other sibling tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. The agent receives no help in selecting this tool over other options.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only calculation or has side effects, what happens with invalid dates, whether it handles historical/ future dates, or any rate limits. The description states what the tool does but not how it behaves.

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 (just 4 Korean characters) and front-loaded with the core purpose. There's zero wasted text or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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?

For a 4-parameter conversion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (converted date format? success/failure?), doesn't address edge cases (invalid dates, calendar boundaries), and provides minimal guidance on parameter usage despite low schema coverage.

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 only 25% (only the 'date' parameter has a description), and the description adds no parameter information beyond the tool's general purpose. It doesn't explain the meaning of 'fromCalendar'/'toCalendar' enums beyond what's in the schema, nor does it clarify the purpose of 'isLeapMonth' or how parameters interact.

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 '양력↔음력 변환' (Solar↔Lunar conversion) clearly states the tool's function with specific verbs (convert/transform) and resources (calendar systems). It distinguishes this conversion tool from sibling tools like fortune-telling or compatibility analysis, though it doesn't explicitly mention what distinguishes it from potential similar conversion 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or how this differs from other calendar-related operations that might exist in the broader context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description '10년 대운' gives no indication of what the tool does, whether it's a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, what the output format might be, or any rate limits or constraints. This is completely inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters that appears to perform fortune calculation.

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?

While technically concise with just three Korean characters, this represents severe under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description doesn't earn its place as it provides no useful information about the tool's function. A truly concise description would still convey essential purpose while being brief.

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?

This is a 5-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description '10년 대운' (which translates to '10-year great fortune') is completely inadequate for understanding what the tool does, how to use it, what inputs it requires, or what it returns. The agent would have no basis for selecting or invoking this tool 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 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides absolutely no information about what parameters are needed or what they mean. Parameters like 'birthDate', 'birthTime', 'calendar', 'isLeapMonth', and 'gender' are completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent with no guidance on how to use them.

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 '10년 대운' is a tautology that restates the tool name in Korean without providing any functional explanation. It doesn't specify what action the tool performs or what resource it operates on. The description fails to distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'get_daily_fortune' or 'get_fortune_by_period' that also appear to provide fortune-related outputs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'analyze_saju' or 'check_compatibility'. The agent receives no information about appropriate use cases or when other tools might be more suitable.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it has side effects, what authentication might be required, rate limits, or what the output format might be. For a tool with 6 parameters that presumably performs fortune calculation, this lack of behavioral context is severely inadequate.

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 at just two Korean characters, which could be seen as efficient. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being severely under-specified rather than truly concise. While it's front-loaded (there's only one element), it doesn't earn its place by providing necessary information.

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 complexity (6 parameters including birth details, calendar types, and gender), complete lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool actually does, how to use it properly, what it returns, or how it differs from sibling tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to effectively invoke the tool.

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 only 17% (only 'targetDate' has a description), leaving 5 parameters completely undocumented in the schema. The description '일일 운세' adds zero information about what any parameters mean, their expected formats beyond what's in the schema, or how they influence the fortune calculation. This fails to compensate for the poor schema coverage.

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 '일일 운세' (daily fortune) is a tautology that restates the tool name 'get_daily_fortune' in Korean without adding any meaningful clarification. It doesn't specify what action the tool performs (e.g., 'retrieves', 'calculates', 'generates') or what resource it operates on beyond the obvious. While it's clear this is about daily fortunes, it fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_fortune_by_period' or 'analyze_saju'.

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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools like 'get_fortune_by_period' (which might handle different time ranges) or 'analyze_saju' (which might provide different types of fortune analysis). The agent receives no help in selecting the appropriate tool for a given scenario.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (fortune by period) without explaining what the output looks like, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a fortune-telling tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 - just a single Korean phrase with English period types in parentheses. While this is efficient, it may be too brief given the tool's complexity. The information is front-loaded but lacks necessary elaboration for a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema.

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?

For a fortune-telling tool with 8 parameters, 38% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what fortune information is returned, how to interpret results, or provide sufficient context about the cultural/astrological system being used. The description leaves too many questions unanswered for effective tool use.

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 only 38%, meaning most parameters lack documentation in the schema. The description provides no additional parameter information beyond the basic Korean phrase '시간대별 운세' which translates to 'fortune by time period.' It doesn't explain what birthDate/birthTime formats are expected, what the periodType values mean in practice, or how target and count parameters interact.

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 '시간대별 운세 (year/month/hour/multi-year)' states the tool provides fortune-telling by time period, which is a clear purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about what specific fortune information is returned and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling fortune-related tools like 'get_daily_fortune' or 'analyze_saju' beyond the time period focus.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple fortune-related sibling tools (analyze_saju, get_daily_fortune, check_compatibility), but the description doesn't explain what makes this period-based fortune tool distinct or when it's preferable to use daily fortune analysis or other options.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Manage (get/set)' implies both read and write operations, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permission requirements, side effects, rate limits, or what happens when settings are changed. For a tool with mutation capability (set action) and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 - just two words in Korean plus (get/set) in parentheses. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While efficient, it might be too brief given the tool's complexity (3 parameters with nested objects).

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 3 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and manages settings that likely affect sibling analysis tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what interpretation settings are, how they affect other tools, or provide enough context for proper usage. The conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'get/set' which aligns with the 'action' parameter enum, but it doesn't explain the meaning of 'preset' options (ziping, dts, etc.) or the 'custom' object structure. With 3 parameters (action, preset, custom) and nested objects, the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema's enum values already imply.

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 '해석 설정 관리 (get/set)' translates to 'Interpretation settings management (get/set)' which states the tool manages interpretation settings with get/set operations. It's somewhat vague about what 'interpretation settings' specifically refer to (likely related to sibling tools like analyze_saju or get_fortune_by_period), but it does specify the verb (manage) and resource (interpretation settings). No sibling differentiation is provided.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like analyze_saju and get_fortune_by_period, there's no indication of how this settings management relates to those analysis tools.

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