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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds operational context beyond annotations only via the '[Cost: 10 credits (Tier 1)]' and group tags; it says nothing about the computation performed, determinism relative to input, or limits. Adequate but thin given annotations carry the behavioral burden.

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 core statement, followed by a compact enumeration and two bracketed metadata tags. Efficient and free of filler, though the enumeration of ten terms is dense and the metadata tags sit outside the prose.

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, and annotations cover safety. But the description omits the essential framing that this is a birth-chart-derived computation requiring a date/time, and gives no routing against the numerous BaZi siblings - a real gap for a 7-parameter tool in a dense toolset.

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 57%, and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all - it never mentions date, time, timezone, fields, or precision. With over half the parameters documented only in the schema and the remainder undocumented anywhere, the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific resource and operation ('Ten Gods classification per day master') and enumerates the ten gods with their category labels (peer, output, wealth, officer, resource), which tells an agent what the output represents. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling BaZi tools (day_master, four_pillars, hidden_stems) that an agent might otherwise reach for.

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 is needed), and no mention of any alternative sibling. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and group tag.

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