Ten Gods (Shi Shen)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, etc., so the agent knows this is a safe query. The description does not contradict annotations and adds the example request, but doesn't elaborate on behavior like error cases or output format. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 relatively short and includes only necessary information: the classification purpose, list of ten gods, group, and an example. It is front-loaded with the key action. A minor improvement would be to remove the list of gods if redundant, but it does not waste space.

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 tool has 4 parameters with only 1 required, and no output schema. The description lists the ten gods classifications, hinting at the output content, but does not specify the output structure or how the optional parameters (latitude, longitude, timezoneOffset) affect the result. For a simple classification tool, it is adequate but could be more complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are described in the input schema. The description provides an example with 'date' but adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema definitions. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema already documents parameters well.

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 the tool does 'Ten Gods classification per day master', which is a specific verb and resource. It lists the ten gods categories and provides an example request. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'bazi_day_master' or 'bazi_four_pillars', the purpose is well-defined and 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions the group 'BaZi (Four Pillars)' and provides an example, but does not indicate when this classification is appropriate or what the prerequisites are. With many sibling BaZi tools, clearer usage cues would help.

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