六爻+奇门双法同参

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the real-engine nature (actual computation, not templates), the strict number-entry rule, the precondition of a clarified matter, and the no-repeat-casting guidance. It does not cover auth needs or rate limits, but for a divination tool the disclosed casting rules are substantial.

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?

A single dense paragraph where each sentence carries distinct information: core purpose, return components, method selection rules, and a usage warning. Front-loaded with the purpose. Efficient with no filler, though the compactness slightly reduces scannability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, though the description does list return components anyway. For an 11-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete — the date/time and detail/category parameters are entirely unaddressed, leaving an agent guessing at their format and semantics.

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 0% — no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description only partially explains 3 of 11 parameters (method, numbers, question), leaving year/month/day/hour/minute/time_zone/detail/category undocumented in both the schema and the description. For a tool with zero schema coverage, the description must compensate far more than it does.

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 states a specific action: using a real engine to simultaneously cast Liu Yao and Qi Men charts and perform dual-method joint consultation. It clearly differentiates from siblings — resolve_pillars (pillar resolution), bazi_ziwei_chart (Bazi/Zi Wei), hexagram_diagram (single diagram), laoshifu_consultation (human consultation) — by naming the dual-method fusion resource and its scope.

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?

Clear context for choosing method=time (use confirmed current moment) versus method=numbers (three positive integers from first thought), plus a precondition (matter must be clarified first) and a warning against re-casting. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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