Health Palace (Ji'e)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's genuine addition is pricing ('5 credits, Tier ½') and the endpoint, which the agent cannot learn from structured fields. It still says nothing about what the palace result contains or any constraints on the chart date.

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 each bracketed metadata line carrying distinct, non-redundant information. The only cost is that the opening fragment set is so compressed it reads as under-specification rather than deliberate brevity.

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 the description leaves a critical ambiguity unresolved: whether 'date' is a birth date or the date of the chart, and what the health palace actually reports (predispositions, body areas, stars in the palace). For a chart-computation endpoint costing credits, that is a significant gap.

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 50% — timezone and timezoneOffset are well documented in the schema itself, while date and time have only regex patterns. The description's '[Required: date]' merely restates the schema's required list and adds no semantics (e.g., whether date is the birth date or an event 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 is three noun fragments, 'Body, illness, weak points,' with no verb or object, so the tool's action must be inferred from the name/title 'Health Palace (Ji'e)'. It does narrow the subject matter (health/body significations) but never states that it computes a Zi Wei Dou Shu palace, nor distinguishes itself from the sibling palace tools (wealth, career, spouse, etc.).

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 guidance on when to choose this over astroway_ziwei_twelve_palaces, astroway_ziwei_chart, or the medical-astrology sibling. The metadata lines give operational facts (endpoint, required field, cost) but no selection criteria or preconditions.

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