Monthly Forecast

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the method (Sheng-Ke, branch-clash, jieqi) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like response format or limitations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with a clarifying example and group label. Every sentence earns its place, and the core functionality is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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?

The description is missing information about return values, especially since there is no output schema. It explains what the tool does but not what it returns, which is a notable gap. The annotations and example mitigate some incompleteness, but the lack of output description lowers the score.

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 input schema describes only a generic 'body' parameter, but the description provides a concrete example showing required fields (natalDate, targetYear, targetMonth). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, compensating for its generic description. With 100% schema coverage, additional detail is minimal but the example is key.

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 clearly states it performs the same Sheng-Ke and branch-clash analysis as the yearly tool but applied to a specific calendar month. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool bazi_yearly, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implicitly tells when to use it (for monthly BaZi analysis) and contrasts it with the yearly version. It groups the tool under 'BaZi (Four Pillars)' and provides an example, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the yearly tool.

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