農曆公曆互轉

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that leap-month allocation is astronomically determined and that outputs are authoritative, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about error handling for out-of-range dates, return shape, or performance. Adequate but incomplete for a zero-annotation 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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the rationale, then the two directions as a compact bulleted list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 and no annotations, the description needs to stand alone, and it does cover both directions, leap-month input marking, and the returned components (lunar date, ganzhi, zodiac). It omits error/range behavior for invalid combos, keeping it just short of fully self-contained.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that direction selects the input interpretation and that isLeapMonth marks a leap month only on the lunar→solar path, adding modest meaning, but introduces no new format or constraint detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('農曆與公曆日期互轉') and enumerates scope beyond the name: 閏月處理, 干支年月日, 生肖. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like jieqi_query or the bazi_* family without opening the 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?

Gives a clear reason to use it (AI commonly mis-guesses leap-month assignment, this returns authoritative data) and spells out the two supported directions. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer when, so it stops short of 5, but the usage context is well established.

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