八字+紫微双盘排盘

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It reveals use of a real chart engine, the inclusion of citable evidence entries, and a non-obvious calendar trap. It does not discuss side effects or permissions, but for a chart-casting tool the disclosed output scope and constraints are substantial.

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 compact and well-structured: output first, usage condition second, calendar warning third. Every sentence adds distinct value with no filler.

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?

This is an 11-parameter tool with zero parameter-level schema descriptions. Although an output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, the description still leaves the caller to guess multiple input details such as allowed detail values, calendar encoding, time-zone handling, and leap-month semantics. The tool is easy to select but not fully specified for correct invocation.

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%, and the description only explicitly addresses the calendar distinction. It does not clarify the meaning of year, month, day, hour, gender, detail, time_zone, current_year, or is_leap_month, nor the valid values for detail and calendar. Some meaning can be inferred from the tool's domain, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific action and resource: it 'simultaneously produces both BaZi and Ziwei charts' and enumerates the returned data. It also clearly distinguishes itself from liuyao_qimen_fusion by scope, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

It gives an explicit condition: use only for long-term fate or stage fortune, and for specific matters use liuyao_qimen_fusion instead. It also supplies an important invocation rule: the caller must explicitly specify solar or lunar calendar and cannot default to solar.

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