Year Pillar

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds useful operational detail — the endpoint path, that date is required, and a cost of 10 credits (Tier 1). It says nothing about what the response contains or how time/timezone affect the computed pillar.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the output fields first and metadata bracketed at the end. There is little waste, though the fragmentary style means the reader gets no connecting verbs.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a 5-parameter tool at 40% schema coverage the description leaves too much unsaid: no guidance on optional parameters, no differentiation from the many other BaZi pillar tools, and no note on how timezone affects the result.

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 40%, so the description needs to compensate, but it only repeats that 'date' is required. It says nothing about the optional time, language, or how timezone vs timezoneOffset interact, and the schema itself leaves date, time, and language undocumented.

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 phrase 'Year stem + branch + animal + element with yin/yang' tells an agent what data the tool returns for a BaZi year pillar, but it is a noun fragment with no verb describing the operation. It also does not distinguish this from close siblings such as astroway_bazi_month_pillar, astroway_bazi_hour_pillar, astroway_bazi_four_pillars, or astroway_bazi_year_pillar_decade.

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?

'[Required: date]' is a parameter fact, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to call this versus the month/hour pillar tools or the full chart tool, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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