Full Chart (MVP)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond this, such as data volume or pagination. With strong annotation coverage, a score of 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 extremely concise: one sentence, a group tag, and an example. No redundant information. Every element earns its place, fitting well within a larger API.

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 an overview tool with no output schema and many alternatives, the description lacks detail on what the output contains. It mentions 'overview' but does not specify fields or format. The example shows input only. More context on the return structure is needed.

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 parameters are fully documented. The description adds value with a concrete example request body, illustrating a valid invocation. Example usage aids understanding but no additional semantic depth for lat/long/timezoneOffset is provided.

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 identifies the tool as providing an overview of Year pillar, animal, and 12 palaces for Zi Wei Dou Shu. While it lacks a verb like 'computes' or 'generates,' the noun phrase 'overview' is sufficient to convey the output. It is distinguishable from siblings like ziwei_twelve_palaces, which focus on individual palaces.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With dozens of Zi Wei siblings, explicit context for selection is missing. The example usage hints at input but does not address tool choice.

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