calculate_timing

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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's additional burden is lower. It adds the precision-threshold constraint, though without explaining what happens when the threshold is not met or what the result looks like. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the core function appears before the constraint. Brevity is an asset here, though some terms like '输入精度门槛' remain undefined.

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 opaque nested payload, 0% schema coverage, and sibling tools with similar 'calculate_' prefixes, the description is not complete enough. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the input structure and precision requirements are still critically underspecified.

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 0% and the sole parameter is an opaque 'payload' object with additionalProperties allowed. The description does not explain the required precision fields, value formats, or how to structure the payload beyond a vague 'input precision' mention, so it fails to compensate for the missing 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('计算') and names the resource ('大周期、年、月时间窗'), and adds a conditional detail about day-level queries. It does not explicitly contrast itself with calculate_natal or calculate_event, so it stops short of full 5-level differentiation.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings. The only usage hint is the vague condition that day-level queries must satisfy an 'input precision threshold', but the threshold itself is not defined and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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