ziwei_liuri

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains the output includes current periods (大限, 小限, 流年, 流月, 流日), calendar conversion, ganzhi days, and the complete four-transformation system. It also notes the special representation of leap months with negative numbers. This provides good behavioral context beyond just stating it lists daily fortunes.

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 with bullet points, making it somewhat structured. However, it is a bit verbose with excessive punctuation and line breaks. Each sentence serves a purpose, but the formatting is not ideal for quick scanning. It could be more concise by removing redundant phrasing.

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 tool has 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the output content (daily fortunes, calendar data, transformations) and a special behavior (leap month representation). It does not explain the return format or pagination, but the listed items give a good understanding of what to expect. For a complex tool, this is adequate.

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 every parameter has a description in the schema. The description itself adds minimal extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. It reiterates the leap month convention, which is already in the schema's description for 'lunarMonth'. There is no significant additional detail about parameter relationships or formatting.

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 states the tool provides a list of daily fortunes for a specified lunar month, including various calendar and astrological details. It clearly identifies the resource (daily flow) and verb (list). While it distinguishes from siblings like 'ziwei_liunian' and 'ziwei_liuyue' by focusing on '流日', it does not explicitly compare with all siblings, leaving some ambiguity.

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 '用于精细的日期选择' (used for fine date selection), implying usage context. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ziwei_basic' or 'bazi_liuri', nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations. The context is implied but not fully explicit.

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