Luck Pillars (Da Yun)

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

The description includes an example with parameters ('gender', 'count') not present in the input schema, creating a dangerous inconsistency. It fails to explain the role of latitude/longitude/timezoneOffset defined in the schema. Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent hints; the description adds no further behavioral clarity.

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 short and includes a group tag, but the inconsistent example undermines its usefulness. Conciseness is not helpful if it introduces confusion.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the 'sequence' contains or how to interpret the result. It also does not mention that the schema accepts location parameters, and the example's 'count' is unexplained. This leaves the agent underinformed.

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?

While the schema provides adequate coverage (100% with descriptions), the description adds no value and actually misleads by showing example parameters not in the schema. This reduces the semantic clarity for the agent.

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 '10-year luck pillars sequence' and clarifies the direction logic based on gender and year-stem polarity. This sufficiently identifies the tool's purpose as computing a sequence of luck pillars, distinguishing it from other bazi 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bazi_monthly or bazi_yearly. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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