Wealth Palace (Caibo)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no additional behavioral traits (e.g., no mention of error handling, rate limits, or data scope). With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate as description doesn't contradict but adds minimal value.

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?

Description is extremely brief (one line plus group and example). It lacks structure and does not convey essential information. While concise, it is under-specified and does not earn its sentences by providing clear value. Example is helpful but insufficient.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., interpretation, numerical data, visual representation). It only mentions 'Income, material prosperity' but no details on output format, depth of analysis, or how parameters affect results. Incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and a specialized domain.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters (date, latitude, longitude, timezoneOffset), so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The example only shows date, not the optional parameters. Baseline score of 3 for adequate schema coverage.

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 states 'Income, material prosperity' and title 'Wealth Palace (Caibo)', which indicate the domain but lack a verb specifying the action (e.g., 'calculate', 'interpret', 'get'). Compared to sibling tools like 'ziwei_palace_career', it fails to differentiate clearly what this tool outputs or how it operates. Purpose is vague.

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 other palace tools (e.g., ziwei_palace_destiny) or other wealth-related tools (e.g., financial_wealth_house). No context about prerequisites, input constraints, or appropriate scenarios. Completely absent.

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