get_natural_calendar_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it returns structured facts, implying a read-only operation, but provides no details about call behavior, return format beyond 'structured', potential costs, or side effects. This is insufficient for a complex multi-fact tool.

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 sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is efficiently front-loaded with the action ('Return') and the key resource types. There is zero waste, which is ideal for conciseness.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description. It returns diverse types of information (phenology, moon phase, summer-dog, shu-jiu) but provides no explanation of what these are, how they are computed, or how the parameters influence them. The description is not complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior or outputs.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate. The two parameters, 'date' and 'timezone', are not explained in the description; it does not state how they affect the output, what formats are expected, or whether they are required. With no parameter semantics conveyed, the agent cannot confidently construct valid calls.

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 the tool returns specific types of natural calendar information (phenology, moon phase, summer-dog, shu-jiu facts) with a specific verb 'Return'. It is understandable and distinct from siblings like get_day_pillars and get_four_pillars, though it does not explicitly differentiate from get_calendar_context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like get_calendar_context and get_day_pillars exist, but the description gives no context on selection criteria or prerequisites, leaving the agent to guess when this tool is appropriate.

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