Chinese Element

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already disclose safety. The description adds that it operates on a 'solar year' and provides an example request, but does not elaborate on output format or potential side effects beyond what annotations cover.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence defining output, a group tag, and an example. No filler, front-loaded with essential information.

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?

For a computation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not specify the output structure or behavior (e.g., list, string), leaving the agent uncertain about return value format.

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 all parameters documented. The description merely shows example values without adding semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Fixed-branch element + cycling-stem element + yin/yang for given solar year.' This distinguishes it from siblings like chinese_zodiac_animal which return animal signs. The group tag reinforces its domain.

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. It does not compare to chinese_zodiac_animal or other zodiac tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or context for selection.

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