bazi_liuyue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns 12 monthly fortunes, uses solar terms (not lunar), and describes output fields (stem-branch month, solar term start/end, Gregorian date range). This adequately informs the agent about the tool's behavior, though it omits details like error handling or rate limits, which are less critical for a read-only tool.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief header, a bulleted list of key points, and a summary of output. Every sentence is informative with no fluff. It front-loads the critical distinction (solar vs lunar month) and provides essential context efficiently.

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?

The description explains the core concept of solar terms and output format, but it does not clarify how input parameters (birth date, gender, etc.) relate to the query year (ganzhiYear). An agent might not understand why birth data is needed for a monthly fortune tool. The output schema is absent, but the description partially compensates. Some context about the computation is missing, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. It mentions '指定年份' but does not elaborate on the 'ganzhiYear' parameter's dual type (string or integer) or other inputs. The output format description is useful but not parameter semantics. No extra value added.

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 it returns a list of 12 monthly fortunes for a given year, using solar terms (节气月) instead of lunar months. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bazi_liunian (yearly) and bazi_liuri (daily) by specifying the monthly scope and output details like stem-branch months and solar term boundaries.

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 explicitly warns that the tool uses solar terms, not lunar months, and provides concrete examples of boundaries (e.g., 立春, 寅月). This clarifies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, such as comparing with bazi_liunian or bazi_liuri, leaving room for improvement.

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