Tong Shu date selection

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds important operational detail: the 366-day cap is refused rather than truncated, and clash-days can optionally be dropped. It does not cover rate limits or auth details, but it is substantially more informative than the annotations alone.

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 two tightly written sentences with the core behavior and range constraint front-loaded. The bracketed endpoint, required-parameter, and cost metadata are clearly separated and do not interrupt the main explanation.

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 the description need not explain return fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. The main workflow and hard range limit are clear, though the optional language and includeNeutral parameters remain unexplained.

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 compensate. It explains the date range, the single activity, and the animal-clash option, but language and includeNeutral are left undefined, so only part of the parameter surface is clarified.

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 verb and resource: walk a date range and return the days the almanac endorses for one activity. It also names the result detail (the deciding officer), making the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishable from a generic Tong Shu lookup.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: selecting auspicious days for one activity within a date range, with an optional animal-clash filter. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as the plain Tong Shu tool or say when not to use this selection tool, so it falls short of a full 5.

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