Year Pillars × 10

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns 10 consecutive pillars, which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like response format or pagination. No contradiction 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 very concise with two short sentences, a group tag, and an example. It is front-loaded and efficient, though a single additional sentence on usage alternatives would improve it.

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 tool's simplicity (one mandatory parameter, no output schema), the description covers the input via example. However, it lacks any description of the output format or structure, which is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 only defines a 'body' object with a generic description pointing to the tool description. The example '{"startYear":1990}' gives some meaning, but the schema coverage is 100% only because the schema refers to the description. The description provides a usage example but does not fully explain the expected fields or types beyond 'startYear'.

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 explicitly states the tool returns '10 consecutive year pillars from a given starting year,' clearly defining the action (returns) and resource (year pillars) and distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'bazi_year_pillar' which likely handles a single 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?

The description implies use for obtaining a decade of year pillars but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'bazi_year_pillar'. No guidance on when-not-to-use or prerequisites is provided.

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