토정비결 운세 조회

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. It transparently explains the internal procedure (작괘), the output content (총운 and 12-month monthly fortune), the fact that it returns original text unchanged, and that it does not generate interpretations or use the hour. This is a thorough and honest account of the tool's behavior.

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 concise and well-structured: three sentences each serve a distinct purpose—stating the main function, describing the method and return value, and clarifying exclusions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant words or 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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does a good job of explaining what it returns and what it does not do. It covers the essential behavior and exclusions effectively. However, it does not mention parameter defaults (e.g., target_year defaults to current year) or provide any guidance relative to the sibling tool, which would round out the context. Nevertheless, the description is sufficiently complete for typical 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?

Since the schema description coverage is 100%, all parameters (birth_date, calendar, target_year, is_leap_month) already have clear descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning: it confirms birth_date as the key input and explicitly states that the hour is not used, which is a helpful clarification but does not significantly go beyond the schema. Therefore, baseline 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's purpose: it inquires the annual Tojeong Secret fortune based on birth date, computes a 3-digit hexagram, and returns the overall and monthly fortunes as original text. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by specifying its input (birth date) and output (fortune text), making it unambiguous.

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 clear usage context: it is a data-only tool that returns raw original text and does not generate interpretations or advice, which serves as an exclusion criterion. It also notes that the hour is not used, guiding the user on relevant inputs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like the sibling tool tojeong_gwae_lookup, so it falls short of a full 'when-to-use-vs-alternatives' explanation.

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