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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds real context beyond them: local times follow the client-shared location when no city is supplied, and the result set is defined as terms plus Lunar New Year plus zodiac year. It doesn't cover ordering or out-of-range year handling, but that gap is minor.

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 dense front-loaded sentence defines the payload, followed by a compact set of query phrasings that serve retrieval matching rather than padding. Every clause earns its place.

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 fully compensates by spelling out exactly what comes back (24 terms with local date/time, Lunar New Year date, zodiac year) and how localization resolves. 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 description coverage is 100%, so both optional parameters (city, timezone) and the year range are already fully documented. The description only restates the location-fallback rule that the schema already states for city and timezone, adding no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 scope: all 24 solar terms of a given year with exact local date/time, plus Lunar New Year and the new zodiac year. The enumeration of returned content makes it distinguishable from siblings like get_almanac_month or get_chinese_zodiac without opening a 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?

Example phrasings ('when is Chinese New Year 2027', 'when is the winter solstice', '二十四节气') give a clear trigger context for when to call it. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so the overlapping zodiac-year output is not routed against get_chinese_zodiac.

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