get_auspicious_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so exceptionally well. It discloses timezone handling, defaults, the UTC+7 anchor for metadata lookups, and the potential slight differences near tiết-khí boundaries. It also outlines the return structure, providing transparency without needing 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 well-structured with clear headings (Purpose, Parameters, Returns) and is appropriately detailed for the tool's complexity. Every sentence adds value, and the organization makes it easy for an agent to scan and extract key 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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers when to use, all parameters with defaults, an explicit list of return fields, and even edge-case behavior. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, but the description compensates fully with a dedicated Parameters section. Each parameter has its type, default, and meaning, including the timezone format nuance (integer or 'h:30' string) and the is_solar boolean. This exceeds what the bare schema provides.

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 opens with a clear statement of what the tool evaluates: auspicious days, hours, 12 Trực, 28 Tú, Tiết Khí, and auspicious directions. It names the specific Vietnamese entities and explicitly lists use cases, distinguishing it from sibling tools like convert_calendar or get_van_han.

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 clearly states when to use the tool ('Use this tool when users ask to check good/bad days, auspicious hours...') and gives concrete activity examples. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternative sibling tools, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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