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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: uncertainty bands in seconds, the unverified-year case where no dates are returned, and the presence of an attribution line and permalink in the response. The unverified edge case is exactly the kind of failure mode an agent needs to know before calling.

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?

Three short, front-loaded paragraphs: what it returns, why the clock matters, and what comes back. Every sentence carries information, including the caveat about fixed-date lists, and nothing is padded. The stray quotes around "year" are the only blemish.

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, so the description has to describe the payload itself, and it does: the three time representations, the uncertainty band, the attribution line, the permalink, and the unverified case returning no dates. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to interpret the result.

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%, so both parameters are already documented with examples and the YYYY format. The description restates the year range and mentions the 'optional zone' but adds no format or interaction detail (e.g. offsets vs IANA names) beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 verb and resource ('Returns the 24 solar terms of a year') and then defines exactly what a solar term is here: the instant the Sun reaches each 15-degree mark of ecliptic longitude. The year range (1926-3026) and the time bases (UTC, Beijing time, optional zone) pin the scope down so an agent can distinguish it from compute_panchang or convert_chinese_lunar_date.

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 second paragraph gives a real usage rationale: a term's date depends on the clock it is read in, and fixed-date lists can be a day off either way, which tells the agent to prefer this tool over static tables when precision matters. It does not, however, name any sibling alternative or say when not to use it, so it falls short of the explicit routing credit.

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