bazi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the parameter constraint (mutual exclusivity of solarDatetime and lunarDatetime), which is useful. However, it doesn't describe other behavioral traits such as what the tool returns (Bazi information format), error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only or mutative. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds critical usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and a key parameter constraint but lacks details on return values, error conditions, behavioral traits, and full parameter semantics. For a tool that likely returns structured Bazi data, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds some semantics: it explains that solarDatetime and lunarDatetime are mutually exclusive time inputs (公历或农历 - Gregorian or lunar calendar), and implies gender is required. However, it doesn't clarify the meaning of 'eightCharProviderSect' or provide format details (e.g., datetime string format, gender encoding). The description partially compensates but doesn't fully address the coverage gap, warranting a baseline score.

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: '根据时间（公历或农历）、性别来获取八字信息' (Get Bazi information based on time (Gregorian or lunar calendar) and gender). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get/retrieve) and resource ('八字信息' - Bazi information), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getChineseCalendar or getSolarTimes, which prevents a perfect score.

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 clear usage guidance: 'solarDatetime和lunarDatetime必须传且只传其中一个' (solarDatetime and lunarDatetime must be passed and only one of them should be passed). This specifies a critical constraint for parameter usage. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to getChineseCalendar or getSolarTimes), and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions, which keeps it from a score of 5.

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