Full BaZi chart

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it enumerates the computed sections, notes localisation by language, clarifies that solar-time correction affects only day and hour while year and month use world instants, and includes endpoint and credit-cost metadata.

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?

It front-loads the full-chart scope, then adds the high-value solar-time caveat. The text is dense but every sentence contributes, and the bracketed metadata is compact.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not document returned structure, and annotations already cover safety. However, for a 12-parameter tool with one required parameter, it gives no guidance on most optional controls or sibling selection, leaving an agent with an incomplete operational picture.

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 description coverage is only 17%, with timezone and timezoneOffset documented in the schema. The description explains longitude plus trueSolarTime and mentions language localisation, but leaves date, time, gender, dayBoundary, includeLuck, stageSchool, and includeFullTable unexplained, so it does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 resource and enumerates the readings returned: hidden stems, na yin, twelve stages, element balance, strength, symbolic stars, and interactions. 'In one call' hints at its aggregate role versus the granular BaZi siblings, but it never names or explicitly contrasts with tools like astroway_bazi_element_balance or astroway_bazi_four_pillars.

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 only operational guidance is 'Pass longitude with trueSolarTime true' for solar-time correction; it does not say when to choose this full chart over the many granular BaZi sibling tools or when not to use it. The aggregate scope implies usage, but selection guidance is left largely to inference.

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