get_ziwei_chart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide - no information about rate limits, authentication requirements, performance characteristics, or error conditions. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so it meets the minimum baseline with annotations present.

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 a single, efficient Chinese sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and the scope of information returned. Every word earns its place - it specifies what information is obtained and lists the key components included. No wasted words or redundant 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?

For a complex tool with 12 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The annotations cover safety aspects, and the schema has good documentation coverage. However, the description doesn't explain what format or structure the returned chart information will have, which would be helpful given the complexity of Ziwei charts and the absence of an output schema.

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?

With 83% schema description coverage, the input schema already provides comprehensive documentation for most parameters. The description mentions '排盘信息' (chart arrangement information) which implies the parameters are for birth data input, but adds no specific guidance about parameter interactions, default behaviors, or special considerations beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '获取紫微斗数排盘信息' (get Ziwei Dou Shu chart information). It specifies the resource (Ziwei chart) and the scope of information returned (twelve palaces, main stars, auxiliary stars, four transformations). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ziwei_fortune' or 'analyze_ziwei_palace', which likely provide different aspects of Ziwei analysis.

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. There are multiple sibling tools related to Ziwei and fortune analysis (get_ziwei_fortune, analyze_ziwei_palace, etc.), but the description doesn't indicate whether this is the primary chart generation tool versus more specialized analysis tools. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases is provided.

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