vedika_iching_cast

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses the return payload in detail, the conditional behavior around changing lines producing a transformed hexagram, and the per-call cost of $0.012. It stops short of stating that the cast is randomized/simulated per invocation (no determinism or reproducibility note) or that there are no side effects.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and immediate return shape, then progressively adds detail on changing lines, trigrams, and cost. The historical aside is one short parenthetical sentence and the pricing line is operational, so nothing meaningfully wastes space.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the response — and it does, down to the transformed hexagram and trigram attributes. Both parameters are documented and optional, so an agent can call it with zero arguments. Lacking only a note on randomness across repeated calls.

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 100%, so the schema already explains method enum semantics and the question field. The description only echoes that both yarrow and coin simulation exist, adding no format or phrasing guidance beyond the schema's own text. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource — 'Cast an I Ching (Book of Changes) hexagram for divination' — and enumerates what comes back (hexagram, name, judgment, image, line texts, transformed hexagram, trigrams). That clearly separates it from tarot/numerology/BaZi siblings by domain, though it never explicitly routes the agent away from those alternatives.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description frames it as divination consultation but gives no criteria for choosing it over vedika_tarot_draw, vedika_numerology_complete, or vedika_chinese_zodiac. The only guidance offered is at the parameter level (yarrow vs. coin), not the tool level.

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