Siblings Palace (Xiongdi)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: the POST endpoint and the 5-credit (Tier ½) cost. It still says nothing about what the palace output contains or whether time improves accuracy.

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 well front-loaded: the semantic subject comes first, then compact bracketed metadata. Every tag carries information (group, endpoint, required param, cost), though the '[Required: date]' tag duplicates the schema.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description need not explain return values, and the cost/endpoint tags add value. However, for a 4-parameter tool it leaves unclear whether time is needed for a meaningful reading and how this palace tool relates to the full-chart tools.

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 documented in-schema; date and time are pattern-only). The description only restates '[Required: date]', adding no format or semantics for the optional time/timezone parameters beyond what the schema already declares.

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 'Brothers, sisters, peer relationships' identifies the subject matter of the Siblings palace, and the group tag confirms the Zi Wei Dou Shu subsystem. But it is a topic fragment rather than a verb+resource statement ('computes the Siblings palace'), and it does not distinguish this from the many other astroway_ziwei_palace_* siblings or from astroway_family_sibling_dynamics.

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 call this versus astroway_ziwei_twelve_palaces, astroway_ziwei_full_chart, or the other single-palace tools. Usage is only implied by the name.

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