Year Pillars × 10

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: a POST endpoint and a credit cost of 10 (Tier 1), which matters for budget-aware agents. It stops short of describing output shape or rate-limit behavior.

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?

One sentence of prose up front, then compact bracketed metadata; nothing is padded and the core behavior is front-loaded.

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 needn't be explained, and the endpoint/cost lines help. But for a tool with two parameters and zero schema descriptions, the definition never clarifies what a 'year pillar' comprises or how language changes output, leaving gaps an agent would have to guess at.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only repeats that startYear is required. The 'language' parameter is never mentioned in the description and has no schema description, nor is any guidance given on the valid year range (1900–2100) or what language affects in the response.

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?

States a concrete output: ten consecutive BaZi year pillars starting from a supplied year. The count '10' and the 'from a given starting year' scope distinguish it from the single-year sibling astroway_bazi_year_pillar, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 statement of when to choose this over astroway_bazi_year_pillar, astroway_bazi_yearly, or astroway_bazi_luck_pillars. The bracketed metadata gives group and endpoint context but no selection criteria, leaving usage to inference from the title alone.

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