buildBaziFromSolarDatetime

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states what the tool does (get bazi information), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: what format the output returns (since there's no output schema), whether this is a read-only operation, potential error conditions, or any performance characteristics. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the lack of 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 extremely concise - a single Chinese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero waste or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though it could benefit from more contextual 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?

Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. For a tool that calculates bazi (a complex Chinese metaphysical system), the description doesn't explain what 'bazi information' includes, doesn't mention the optional 'eightCharProviderSect' parameter that affects calculations, and provides no context about the tool's behavior or output format. The description leaves too many questions unanswered for effective agent use.

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 schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description mentions '阳历时间' (solar calendar time) and '性别' (gender), which map to two of the parameters, but doesn't mention the 'eightCharProviderSect' parameter at all. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description adds minimal value beyond what's already in the structured schema.

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 the tool's purpose: '根据阳历时间、性别来获取八字信息' (Get eight characters/bazi information based on solar calendar time and gender). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get/obtain) and the resource ('八字信息' - eight characters/bazi information). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tools like 'buildBaziFromLunarDatetime' or 'getBaziDetail', which prevents a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'buildBaziFromLunarDatetime' (which uses lunar datetime) or 'getBaziDetail' (which might provide more detailed bazi information). There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate scenarios for this specific tool.

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