get_lucky_hours

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

Without annotations, the description fully conveys that the tool analyzes and scores time periods, returning detailed information including names, animals, scores, and recommendations. It does not disclose limitations or scoring methodology, but covers core behavior well.

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 focused four-sentence paragraph that immediately states the purpose. It contains no redundant or filler content, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 explicitly lists the fields returned for each time period (name, zodiac animal, score, suitable activities, recommendations). This sufficiently informs the agent of the output structure, though it could mention the list/array type explicitly.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds context by linking the activity parameter to activity-specific suitability and clarifying the culture default. This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as determining auspicious hours within a specific day using traditional Chinese time divisions. It distinguishes itself from date-focused sibling tools by emphasizing hourly analysis and returning period-level details.

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 states it is 'perfect for timing important activities, meetings, ceremonies, or decisions within a chosen date,' providing clear use cases. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use or mention alternative tools among siblings.

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