calculate_bazi_compatibility

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It describes the process (comparing pillars and elements), outputs (score, level, analysis), and cultural context. While it doesn't mention side effects or authentication, it adequately sets expectations for a safe read-like operation.

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?

The description is a single paragraph that is moderately concise. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds detail. Every sentence adds value, though minor trimming could improve conciseness without losing 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?

Given the complexity of BaZi compatibility and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (score range, levels, element analysis, insights). It covers the essential aspects for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 well-described parameters. The description adds context about two people's birth dates but does not add significant detail about the timezone_offset parameter beyond the schema. The output is explained in summary but lacks structural details, which is acceptable given no output 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 clearly states the tool analyzes BaZi compatibility between two people, specifies what it compares (four pillars and elemental compositions), and lists specific outputs (score, level, element analysis). It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_zodiac_compatibility which likely uses simpler zodiac signs.

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 description mentions traditional uses (marriage, business partnerships, relationships), providing context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternative tools like check_zodiac_compatibility, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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