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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure and does so meaningfully: deterministic ('Same day → same answer'), no API key required, local, public, and 'Preview ≠ prediction' sets expectations about output nature. It does not describe error behavior or response structure, keeping it short of a 5.

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 behavior ('deterministic rules engine') and trims to short, punchy clauses. The Chinese/English trigger phrases and repeated 'Not X, not Y' pattern are slightly dense but each sentence earns its place for an agent trying to match user intent.

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 5-parameter, no-required-arg tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, determinism, privacy posture, and seat distinction adequately. It does not explain what the returned guidance looks like, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds seat-level framing ('personal (sleep/load) or org (window push vs hold)') that maps to the seat enum, but individual parameter semantics (date, hour, month, locale) are already fully documented in 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?

The description specifies the tool as a deterministic rules engine lookup returning energy rhythm guidance, and distinguishes the two seats (personal vs org). It is a bit abstract compared to siblings like activity_window or body_rhythm, but the engine framing and 'personal vs company rhythm' scope are concrete enough to select 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?

Explicitly states when to call, with concrete trigger phrases (能量怎么调 / 个人今天该推还是该收 / 团队这周该不该硬上线 / personal vs company rhythm) and clear exclusions: 'Not HR scoring, not medical treatment.' Nothing is left to inference about the tool's purpose boundary.

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