cn402_jieqi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It discloses that the tool returns exact UTC timestamps and mentions the price model (auto-paid in USDC). It does not mention any destructive side effects, but the tool is clearly read-only, and the description adds useful context beyond the schema.

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 somewhat verbose due to the list of keywords and synonyms, but the core information is front-loaded. The structure is clear: a list of related terms, a concise statement of functionality, use case, and pricing. Could be tightened by removing redundant keywords.

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?

Given the simple parameter list and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (all 24 solar terms with timestamps). It also includes price info. While the exact output format is not detailed, it is sufficient for a retrieval tool and fits the context of sibling tools.

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?

The input schema has one optional parameter 'year' with 100% description coverage (format YYYY, default current year). The description only repeats that it works 'for a given year' without adding new details beyond the schema, so no extra value is provided.

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 that the tool returns all 24 Chinese solar terms for a given year with exact UTC timestamps, using multiple keywords like '24 Chinese solar terms', 'jieqi', etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cn402_solar and cn402_lunar by explicitly focusing on the 24 solar terms.

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 specifies the intended use cases: 'For AI agents handling Chinese seasonal queries, agricultural planning, traditional culture content.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or mention when not to use it.

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