당사주 별 원문 조회

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it returns the full original text '그대로' (as-is), including symbolic, overall, and period-based sections. This gives the agent a clear expectation of the output's scope and nature, though edge cases like invalid inputs or both-parameter behavior are not addressed.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and output, then adds context. Every phrase earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 lists the output sections (상징, 총평, 시기별 해설) and the intended use case, providing sufficient context for an agent to decide when to invoke. Minor omissions such as the exact return type or error behavior prevent a perfect score, but it is complete for a simple lookup 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it clarifies the 'or' relationship between jiji and star, provides example formats (Hangul and Hanja), and gives a specific example value, which helps correct usage.

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 uses a specific verb ('조회한다') and a specific resource ('별 원문 전체') to clearly state what the tool does. It also differentiates itself as a browsing/testing auxiliary tool, which implies a distinct role from the sibling dangsaju_reading.

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 identifies usage contexts: browsing, testing, and SKILL development. It does not list exclusions or directly contrast with the sibling tool, but the auxiliary-tool framing gives clear guidance on when this lookup should be used instead of a full reading.

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