cn402_hanzi_wuxing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions a price/autopay note which is irrelevant to tool behavior, but fails to disclose read/write operations, error handling, rate limits, or any side effects. The output format is also unspecified.

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 cluttered with keyword repetitions (e.g., many translations of 'five elements') and ends with an irrelevant pricing note. The core message could be conveyed in two sentences; the extra verbiage detracts from clarity for an AI agent.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and use cases. However, it lacks details on output format, error handling, and examples, which would be helpful for an agent to interpret results. The pricing info is extraneous.

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%, so the param 'text' is fully documented. The description does not add meaningful info beyond the schema's description ('Chinese text (required, max 100 chars)'). It repeats the same constraints without providing examples or format details.

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 specifies the tool's function: 'Determine Five Elements (Wu Xing) attribute of each Chinese character.' It also mentions use cases like Chinese naming and Feng Shui, distinguishing it from sibling hanzi tools (e.g., stroke count, pinyin) which focus on other attributes.

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 context on when to use the tool ('Chinese naming consultations and Feng Shui'), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from similar siblings like cn402_bazi_wuxing. The differentiation is implied but not stated directly.

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