check_compatibility

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.