getBaziDetail

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. The description only states what the tool does ('获取八字信息') and parameter constraints. It doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like: what format the BaZi information is returned in, whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 and well-structured. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second sentence provides critical usage guidance about parameter exclusivity. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words. The information is front-loaded appropriately.

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's no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what '八字信息' (BaZi information) actually contains or what format it's returned in. For a tool that presumably returns complex astrological data, this is a significant gap. The description adequately covers input constraints but fails to address the output, which is crucial for agent understanding.

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 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity rule for solarDatetime and lunarDatetime ('必须传且只传其中一个'), which isn't captured in the schema. However, it doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema already provides for the other parameters.

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: '根据时间（公历或农历）、性别来获取八字信息' (Get BaZi information based on time (solar or lunar) and gender). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('八字信息' - BaZi information). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'buildBaziFromLunarDatetime' or 'buildBaziFromSolarDatetime', which appear to serve similar functions.

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 clear usage guidance: 'solarDatetime和lunarDatetime必须传且只传其中一个' (solarDatetime and lunarDatetime must be passed and only one of them). This tells the agent when to use which parameter. However, it doesn't explain when to choose this tool over the sibling tools like 'buildBaziFromLunarDatetime' or 'buildBaziFromSolarDatetime', which appear to be alternatives for similar purposes.

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