Yearly Forecast

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

Annotations (readOnly, idempotent) already indicate safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by listing specific computed outputs (companion/mother/output/control/wealth, clashes, trine support) beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences plus an example and group tag. Every sentence adds value: the first describes the action, the second lists outputs. No fluff.

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 vague schema (raw JSON body) and lack of output schema, the description does a good job explaining inputs via example and outputs via listed relations. It is almost complete for a yearly forecast tool, though more detail on the output format could help.

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 describes a raw 'body' JSON object without properties. The description compensates by providing an explicit example ('natalDate','targetYear') that clarifies the required fields. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though schema coverage is 100% via the description.

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?

Description clearly states the tool compares target year pillar against natal day master and year branch, and returns specific element-flow relations, branch clashes, and trine support. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling BaZi tools like bazi_monthly or bazi_luck_pillars.

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 usage for yearly BaZi forecasts via the title 'Yearly Forecast' and group tag 'BaZi (Four Pillars)'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. other BaZi tools, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or alternative tool names.

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