Unified Reading

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false; the description adds the meaningful privacy disclosure 'Nothing is stored', which is the kind of context annotations cannot express. It also identifies what the tool cannot compute, preventing over-reliance.

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 outputs, then the input constraint, then the privacy note, then the scope limit. Dense with no filler, though the four-clause structure is slightly dense for a one-parameter tool.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description names the three computed values and the guide links, so an agent knows what to expect. The exclusion of advanced astrological outputs is covered; only the exact response shape (e.g., how links are formatted) is left implicit.

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 itself documents the YYYY-MM-DD format and 1900-or-later/not-future bounds, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly forbidding additional personal data, reinforcing the single-parameter contract beyond the schema's additionalProperties constraint.

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 verb (calculate) and precisely enumerates the three outputs: Life Path number, Western Sun sign, and Chinese zodiac animal, plus the linked reading guides. This is far more than a restatement of the title and lets an agent know exactly what comes back.

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?

Clearly scopes usage: only a date is needed, sensitive extras (names, times, places) must not be sent, and extended features (Moon, rising, houses, full combined reading) require the website form. It does not explicitly route to the siblings get_chinese_zodiac_year or get_unified_reading_options, so a small gap remains.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds beyond that by describing the returned payload (animal, stem element, yin-yang, start/end New Year dates). The 'needs no personal data' note is useful privacy context for an agent deciding whether to ask the user for input, though pagination/errors are irrelevant here.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the first defines the output, the second gives the motivating use case. Both are front-loaded and every clause carries information.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it names the returned fields and the ambiguity the tool resolves (Lunar New Year boundaries). Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains that the year is the one beginning at that calendar year's Lunar New Year, so the description duplicates rather than extends that. It does reinforce the edge-of-year semantics through the January/February example, but adds no bounds or format detail beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource ('Look up a Chinese zodiac year') and even enumerates the fields returned (animal, stem element, yin-yang, New Year dates). It only weakly distinguishes itself from the sibling calculate_birth_date_profile, via the implicit 'needs no personal data' contrast rather than naming it.

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?

Supplies a concrete use case: explaining why a January or February birthday falls under the previous animal, which tells the agent exactly when this tool is the right call. It also signals the alternative data path by noting no personal data is required, but gives no explicit exclusion or when-not-to-use statement.

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 and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. It adds genuinely new behavioral information beyond the annotations: that no personal data is collected, which signals this is a non-personalized static listing and reassures on privacy for a paid-offering tool.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the payoff (price, pages to open) and the privacy caveat packed in without waste. Nothing is 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming what comes back: the offerings, their price, and the pages a person should open. Combined with the privacy note and the single documented parameter, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only explicit usage routing 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 coverage is 100% with a documented enum, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by glossing the enum values themselves — sample and preview are free, fullReading is paid — which gives the agent the semantics needed to pick the right filter value.

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 verb ("List") and resource ("what Unified Reading offers"), and even enumerates the three offering tiers plus price and target pages. It is clearly a static catalog lookup, distinguishable from the profile/zodiac calculators that are its siblings, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this answers questions about reading formats and pricing. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to the sibling tools, which compute personalized results rather than list offerings.

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