netcafe-almanac

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the computational detail of using true solar-term boundaries and enumerates the chart contents, which provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary output and key features without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity, the one-parameter schema, clear annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and behavior. It could mention timezone handling, but the solar-term boundary detail partially addresses temporal context. Overall, it's sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema already fully describes the datetime parameter with format and meaning. The description's mention of 'birth date and hour' reinforces this but does not add new semantic details. Baseline 3 for high schema coverage 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 computes a BaZi chart from birth date/time, enumerating key outputs (four pillars, five elements, na yin, zodiac) and the solar-term boundary method. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lunar_calendar and pick_lucky_days.

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 implies the tool is for generating BaZi charts from birth date/time, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over sibling tools or mention exclusions. Usage context is clear but relies on inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the description needn't repeat them. It adds the 'next holiday' feature but doesn't disclose edge cases like invalid dates or timezone handling. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence effectively communicates the tool's function without waste. Every word adds value.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the primary functionality and the next-holiday bonus. An output schema exists, so return values are presumably documented elsewhere. Minor edge cases could be added, but the description is sufficiently complete.

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% for the single optional date parameter, already explaining the format and default. The description adds no additional param semantics, so 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?

The description clearly defines the tool's purpose: checking if a date is a Chinese public holiday, weekend, or make-up workday, plus returning the next holiday. It uses a specific verb phrase and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like lunar_calendar or bazi_chart.

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 implies usage context (for holiday-related queries) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over siblings or provide exclusion criteria. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already declare safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds the default-date behavior ('date omitted = today') and enumerates the data categories returned, which provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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, using one tight sentence to communicate the tool's purpose, content, and default behavior. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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 simple single-parameter tool with an output schema and safe annotations, the description is fully adequate. It explains what the tool returns (宜, 忌, 冲煞, 彭祖百忌) and the default date behavior, making it complete for selection and invocation.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with a clear description ('YYYY-MM-DD, default today'). The tool description reinforces the default but does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 provides a Chinese almanac for a date, listing specific elements (宜, 忌, 冲煞, 彭祖百忌). This directly distinguishes it from siblings like bazi_chart or lunar_calendar by describing its exact purpose and output content.

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 gives clear context: it is for a specific date and defaults to today when omitted. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the scope is obvious from the description and sibling tool names, making it easy for an agent to decide when to use it.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies the output content (lunar, GanZhi, zodiac, solar terms, festivals, constellations) and the default behavior when 'date' is omitted. This enriches understanding of what the tool returns and how it behaves without contradicting the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's function and default behavior, followed by a concise list of output categories. Every word earns its place, with no waste or redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no nested objects, and an existing output schema), the description is complete. It tells the user what data will be returned (via the content list) and how the input handles omission. The presence of an output schema means return-value details need not be restated. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The input schema describes the 'date' parameter with format and default, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description repeats the default today behavior but does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, the baseline score of 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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Chinese lunar calendar for any date' and enumerates the output categories (农历、干支纪年、生肖、节气、节日、星座). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bazi_chart or huangli, but the title '公历转农历' and focus on lunar calendar data make the purpose 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 conveys when to use the tool: for any Gregorian date to get lunar calendar information, with the date defaulting to today. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternative sibling tools, but the intended use case is clearly implied by the tool's straightforward nature.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read-only operation. The description adds minor behavioral context by listing supported event categories and allowing arbitrary 黄历宜 terms, but it does not disclose output format, pagination, or other behavioral traits. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core function and then lists examples. Every word is useful, and no extraneous information is included. It is concise and well-structured.

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 simple read-only tool with 2 parameters, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It explains the event scope and month behavior. Minor gaps exist (e.g., not explicitly stating the return format), but the output schema presumably covers that, so this is not a significant omission.

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% since both 'event' and 'month' have descriptions. The description adds value by providing a concrete list of example event keywords and explicitly stating that any 黄历宜 term is accepted, which expands the understanding of the 'event' parameter beyond the schema example. It does not add syntax details for 'month', but the schema already covers the format and default.

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: 'Find auspicious days in a month for an event' with specific event examples (结婚/领证/搬家/开业/装修/出行/签约/订婚/安床/安葬). This specific verb+resource scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like huangli or lunar_calendar, which are more general almanac/calendar references.

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 implies usage for finding auspicious days for a particular event, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., bazi_chart, huangli). There is no mention of exclusions or when-not-to-use. The context from siblings and the 'or any 黄历宜 term' phrase provide implicit guidance, but explicit alternatives are missing.

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