datetime.solar_terms

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains that the result is a fixed date table, not a per-year astronomical calculation, so month/day values repeat across years and can differ from actual solar-term dates by a day. It also clarifies the January terms and warns against time-specific use.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the return behavior and followed by the key caveat and exclusion. Every sentence adds relevant information with no waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be explained in prose. Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world behavior, and the description supplies the key caveats an agent needs in order to call this correctly.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning. It clarifies that year is a Gregorian/solar year rather than lunar, which is useful, but it does not specify an accepted range or format for the integer year.

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 a specific verb and resource: it returns the 24 solar-term names and Gregorian dates for a given year, ordered from Ipchun. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling lunar/solar conversion and holiday tools by specifying solar terms rather than lunar dates or holidays.

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?

It gives a clear usage context and an exclusion: do not use it when precise solar-term times are needed, because the table is fixed and may be off by one day. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for precise astronomical solar-term timing, so it falls short of a full when-to-use/when-not/alternatives guideline.

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