vedika_chinese_bazi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so substantively: it discloses the exact response contents, an active input-rejection behavior (timezone-bearing datetimes), and a pricing/consultation caveat. It stops short of stating auth requirements, rate limits, or error formats, but the non-obvious rejection rule is the key disclosure and it is 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?

Front-loaded with the verb, the resource, and the return shape, then the exclusions and the input constraint. Every sentence is informative, though the trailing pricing notice is commercial boilerplate rather than call-relevant guidance.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates the returned pillars, Day Master, and element balance, and it flags the absent features a caller might otherwise assume. For a single-parameter read-only calculation tool this is close to sufficient; only sibling routing for the excluded Da Yun features is left implicit.

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 already 100% and the pattern documents the accepted format, yet the description adds real meaning: the datetime is a 'birth datetime' that is timezone-free, and offset-bearing values are refused. That clarifies semantics the regex alone does not explain for an agent deciding how to construct the input.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Calculate the current basic Ba Zi (Four Pillars) chart') and enumerates exactly what the result contains (Year/Month/Day/Hour pillars, Day Master, dominant element, element balance). It also explicitly scopes itself out from related capabilities (Da Yun, annual luck pillars, favorable/unfavorable elements), so an agent can place it among the many vedika astrology siblings without ambiguity.

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?

Gives clear preconditions: input must be a timezone-free birth datetime, and timezone-bearing input is currently rejected, which prevents a likely invocation error. It also lists capabilities this route omits, implying where another route would be needed, though it does not name the specific sibling tool that supplies Da Yun or annual pillars.

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