chinese_bazi

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description adds that it computes and returns a chart, with credit cost mentioned. There is no contradiction. It provides behavioral context beyond 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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then lists outputs, credit cost, input options, and an example. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the return values (pillars, Day Master, Wu Xing) and provides a concrete example. Input options are clearly explained with constraints. The tool is straightforward and the description covers all necessary details.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains the 2-hour block for Chinese hours, the default hour of 12, and that datetime can be used instead of individual fields with automatic decomposition. This clarifies usage patterns and edge cases.

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 it calculates a Chinese Ba Zi chart, listing the output components (Year, Month, Day, Hour pillars, Day Master, Wu Xing). The verb 'Calculate' and resource 'Chinese Ba Zi chart' are specific, and the tool is distinct from sibling tools which are mostly ephemeris or Western astrology.

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 credit cost, an example, and clarifies two alternative input methods (datetime vs explicit fields). It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs others, but the context of sibling tools makes it clear this is for Chinese Ba Zi. Lacks 'when not to use' guidance.

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