Jiaheniao Tibetan Calendar

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by emphasizing that only reviewed calendar data is used and that results include month-name basis and source links.

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 compact and front-loaded: conversion purpose, supported years, no extrapolation, and return content are all stated without redundant wording.

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 single required parameter, the existing output schema, and the read-only annotations, the description supplies the key operational constraints an agent needs: verified-only data, no extrapolation, and supported years. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already specifies a strict YYYY-MM-DD Gregorian date limited to verified 2026 and 2027. The description reinforces the same year restriction but does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the high-coverage baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: converting a Gregorian date to a verified Tibetan calendar date. It also clearly scopes the operation to 2026 and 2027 and says no extrapolation is performed, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools get_day_mechanism and get_year_festivals.

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 an explicit usage boundary: only verified 2026 and 2027 dates are supported, and no extrapolation is done. It does not name an alternative tool for other years, but the year restriction and no-extrapolation rule make the intended use clear.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by scoping support to 2026/2027 and by warning that a missing day in the Tibetan calendar does not mean the Gregorian date is invalid — a semantic caveat an agent would otherwise misread. It does not say what happens when a caller passes an out-of-range year.

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?

It is short, but it is a single dense semicolon-chained clause in domain jargon, and the hard scope limit (2026, 2027) is buried at the very end rather than front-loaded. The caveat sentence earns its place; the dual-query phrasing does not read cleanly.

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 structure need not be explained. However, for a niche domain tool the description leaves the out-of-range behavior undefined and does not clarify how the 'second duplicate day' and 'skipped day numbers' results relate, which is the one thing an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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% and the single parameter already documents the strict YYYY-MM-DD format and the 2026–2027 verification scope. The description only repeats the year restriction, adding no new syntax or format meaning, so the baseline of 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 names a concrete query object — whether a given Gregorian date is the second occurrence of a Tibetan calendar duplicate day, plus which day numbers were skipped — but it bundles two distinct outputs into one verb ('查询…是否为…；此前跳过哪些日号'), leaving the primary result ambiguous. Nothing in the text distinguishes it from the sibling convert_gregorian_to_tibetan.

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 only usage constraint given is the year scope ('仅2026、2027'), which is a validity boundary rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no statement about when an agent should pick this over convert_gregorian_to_tibetan or get_year_festivals, and no exclusion criteria beyond the years.

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, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations cannot: a hard year restriction (2026/2027 only) and an explicit content exclusion for annual event announcements. It does not discuss result formatting or ordering, but with annotations and an output schema in place this is a modest gap.

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 clause-chained sentence with the core purpose first, then scope limits, then the exclusion. Every clause carries distinct information (what, which years, what is excluded) with no restatement of the name or padding.

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?

The tool is simple (one required integer), annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers scope and the year restriction, which is most of what an agent needs. Minor gap: '十二月名依据' is left unexplained, so an agent cannot anticipate how that basis is represented in the response.

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% and the schema already says the parameter is a Gregorian year integer with an '暂无' result for other years. The description contributes genuinely new constraint information by naming the valid years (2026, 2027), which the schema leaves unspecified. That is real added meaning beyond the schema, though no format or boundary detail beyond the year list.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('按公历年查询已审核正式节日核心日完整表及十二月名依据'), so an agent knows this returns an authoritative festival table keyed by Gregorian year, plus the twelve-month-name basis. It also scopes content ('核心日完整表') versus what it omits ('年度活动公告'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the siblings (convert_gregorian_to_tibetan, get_day_mechanism), which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 bounded explicitly: only years 2026 and 2027 are supported, and annual event announcements are out of scope. That gives a clear when-to-use condition and one when-not-to-use exclusion. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the excluded cases or for other years, so it is not a 5.

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