ziwei_daxian

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It describes the output but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The description does not warn about any side effects.

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 with a brief introductory sentence followed by a bullet list of output fields. It is front-loaded with the purpose and uses minimal words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (list of decade periods with specific attributes). It covers the key output elements, though it does not specify the exact data structure (e.g., JSON format). Still, it is sufficient for understanding the return value.

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%, with each parameter described in the schema. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it focuses on the output, not the parameters.

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 lists the lifelong decade periods (大限周期) with specific fields (starting virtual age, Gregorian years, palace name, main stars, four transformations). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that cover yearly, monthly, or daily fortunes.

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 implies it is used for understanding the overall framework of life stages, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ziwei_basic, ziwei_liunian). No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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