get_almanac

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 discloses what information is returned, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like date range constraints, data sources, or error handling. The description doesn't contradict any annotations (none exist), but could be more comprehensive for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second enumerates the returned data types. Every phrase adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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's moderate complexity (cultural data retrieval), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of outlining what information is returned. It could be more complete by specifying the output format or data structure, but it adequately covers the tool's scope and content for a read-only operation.

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 100% description coverage, documenting the single parameter's format and default behavior. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, but with only one parameter and high schema coverage, the baseline is appropriately met. The description does reinforce the date focus by mentioning 'specific date'.

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's purpose: 'Get Chinese almanac (黄历/老黄历) information for a specific date.' It specifies the exact resource (Chinese almanac) and verb (get), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on cultural/astrological data rather than date calculations, time conversions, or calendar utilities.

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 implies usage context by listing the types of information returned (suitable activities, things to avoid, conflict zodiac, lucky directions), suggesting it's for cultural or planning purposes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_festivals or date_diff, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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