Travel Palace (Qianyi)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., prerequisites, return format, side effects beyond what annotations imply). It fails to add value beyond the structured 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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the key topics. Every sentence serves a purpose: naming the domain, grouping, and providing an example. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more structured with headings.

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 exists, so the description should at least hint at the return type (e.g., 'returns an interpretation of the travel palace'). It does not mention required prerequisites like having a Zi Wei chart computed. The example only shows a date input, omitting that latitude/longitude might be needed for location-based analysis. Given the esoteric topic and sibling complexity, the description is insufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters (date, latitude, longitude, timezoneOffset). The description only provides an example request body, adding no new semantic insight into the parameters themselves. A baseline score of 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 title 'Travel Palace (Qianyi)' and description 'Travel, relocation, foreign opportunities' clearly indicate the tool focuses on travel-related astrology. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ziwei_palace_career by narrowing to a specific palace topic. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'analyze' or 'interpret'), relying on the agent to infer the action.

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 vs alternatives like ziwei_palace_career or when not to use it. It only lists topics, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection among the extensive sibling list.

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