公历转农历

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the supported year range (1900–2100) and the returned fields (干支/生肖/节气/节日), which is real behavioral value. It does not say what happens for out-of-range or malformed dates, nor state that the call is a pure read-only computation.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the conversion direction, then the return contents and the supported range. No filler.

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?

For a one-parameter deterministic conversion with a fully documented schema, the description covers direction, outputs, and range — enough to call it correctly. Only the out-of-range/invalid-date behavior is left unspecified.

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% and the single 'date' parameter already documents the YYYY-MM-DD format. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 conversion direction (Gregorian → lunar) plus the returned components, which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling lunar_to_solar even without naming it. It stops short of an explicit sibling call-out, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative such as lunar_to_solar or holiday_check; the conversion direction only implies the use case. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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