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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely new behavioral context — the grouping under Zi Wei Dou Shu and the billing cost (5 credits, Tier 1/2) — but says nothing about what is returned or how the palace reading is scoped.

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?

Very short and front-loaded with the topic, and the group/cost metadata is compact and useful. However, the terseness comes at the cost of substance — the single content clause does little work for an agent trying to select among hundreds of siblings.

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 values need not be explained, but for a chart tool that requires a birth date and sits among a dozen near-identical palace endpoints, the description omits usage context, prerequisites and sibling differentiation. It is not complete enough to route the agent reliably.

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?

Six parameters with 67% schema coverage: date, time, timezone, timezoneOffset, fields and precision. The description contributes no parameter information at all, leaving the moderately documented schema to carry the full burden without any description-side clarification of defaults or required usage.

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 is a topic fragment ('Income, material prosperity') rather than a verb+resource statement; the title 'Wealth Palace (Caibo)' supplies the resource, so an agent can infer this reads the Zi Wei wealth palace. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as astroway_ziwei_palace_career, astroway_ziwei_palace_property or astroway_financial_wealth_house, so purpose is only implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that a birth date/time is needed), and no mention of alternatives among the twelve ziwei palace tools. The only routing aid is the topic label itself.

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