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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the useful year window constraint and the shape of the result set, but says nothing about rate limits, cost, or how birthInfo override behaves at runtime.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition before the alternatives and the boundary constraint. Every clause carries distinct information; no restatement of the tool 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return payload (score, verdict, alerts, element dimensions) and covers routing and the year window. It is nearly complete, though it omits any note on what the optional birthInfo override does to results beyond the schema's own wording.

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 each parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline would be 3. The description does add one substantive constraint not obvious from the parameter list alone: the hard currentYear-3..currentYear+3 window that governs targetYear, reinforcing the allowed range for a key parameter.

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 (ask) plus resource (year-level intentions) and enumerates the exact payload: year score, verdict, adverse alerts, and element dimensions. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from intentions_ask_month and intentions_ask_day, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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 first clause names the trigger condition with concrete user phrasings ("how is 2026", "今年怎么样", "what's next year like overall"), and the second sentence routes month/day-precision requests to the named sibling tools. The valid window is stated as an explicit boundary, leaving nothing to inference.

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