Wealth Palace (Caibo)

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the cost (5 credits) and endpoint, which are useful operational context, but it does not explain the calculation basis or output nature.

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 definition is short and the bracketed metadata is compact, with no long prose. However, the first line is a vague fragment and the required-date note duplicates what the schema already says.

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 and annotations elsewhere handle return shape and safety, but the description still leaves the core input semantics and sibling choice unclear. For an agent choosing among career, health, spouse, and other palace tools, this definition is not enough to select confidently.

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?

The schema already makes date required and constrains its pattern; the description only repeats "[Required: date]" without saying whether it is a birth date, event date, or current date. The optional time parameter has no semantic explanation in either the schema or the description, so the 50% schema coverage is not compensated.

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 line "Income, material prosperity" restates the title's meaning rather than naming an action or artifact, such as returning the Wealth Palace of a Zi Wei chart. The tool name/title and group carry what little specificity exists; the description itself does not distinguish this from the many sibling palace tools.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. The only usage-like information is "[Required: date]" and the credit cost, which are operational constraints rather than selection guidance.

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