Year Pillar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as output format, constraints, or side effects. With such minimal description, the agent gains little beyond the 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 very short (one line plus group tag and example). It is concise but could benefit from better structuring (e.g., purpose, parameters, example). The key info is front-loaded, but the lack of structure reduces clarity.

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?

No output schema is provided, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns. The tool is part of a large family of BaZi tools, and the minimal description leaves the agent unsure of the output structure, reducing completeness.

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% with four parameters clearly defined. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only provides an example request body. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 that the tool computes the year pillar (stem, branch, animal, element, yin/yang) for a given date. It is a specific verb+resource and distinct from sibling BaZi tools like bazi_day_master or bazi_hour_pillar.

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. The group tag [BaZi (Four Pillars)] only implies context but does not differentiate usage. No when-not-to or alternative recommendations are provided.

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