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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: the endpoint (POST /v1/ziwei/palace-wealth) and a cost of 5 credits (Tier ½). It does not disclose output contents, auth needs, or limitations beyond that.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded, with clean bracketed metadata and zero wasted prose. It is efficient rather than bloated, though the brevity reflects under-specification more than disciplined concision.

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 for a tool that is one of twelve palace siblings, the description omits any usage or routing context and does not elaborate on the optional params, leaving the definition only minimally 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 coverage is 67%, with time and date carrying only patterns and no descriptions. The description adds nothing beyond '[Required: date]', which duplicates the schema's required array. With mid-level coverage and no compensating param detail in the description, a baseline 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 ('Income, material prosperity') is essentially a gloss on the title 'Wealth Palace (Caibo)' and, combined with the group tag, communicates the resource domain. However, it never states a verb or what the tool actually computes/returns for the given date, and it offers no differentiation from the ten sibling palace tools (career, health, spouse, property, etc.). Purpose is inferable but vague.

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 conditions selecting this palace over sibling palaces, and no exclusions. The '[Required: date]' tag merely restates schema requirement, not usage context. An agent gets no routing help.

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