bazi

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the default behavior (today if no date specified) which is useful, but doesn't describe what '黄历信息' includes, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what format the information returns. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise - a single Chinese sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality, default behavior, and parameter purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's moderate complexity (date-based lookup of cultural calendar information), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides a basic but incomplete picture. It covers the purpose and parameter context adequately but lacks details about return values, error handling, and behavioral constraints that would be needed for robust agent usage.

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 description adds meaningful context about the single parameter: it explains that 'solarDatetime' represents a Gregorian date/time, specifies the default behavior (today if not provided), and clarifies this is for '公历时间' (Gregorian/solar calendar time). With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this provides good compensation beyond the bare schema.

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: '获取指定公历时间（默认今天）的黄历信息' (Get Chinese calendar/almanac information for a specified Gregorian date, defaulting to today). It specifies the verb '获取' (get) and resource '黄历信息' (Chinese calendar/almanac information). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getBaziDetail or getSolarTimes, which likely provide different types of Chinese calendar-related data.

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 implies usage context through the default behavior ('默认今天' - defaulting to today) and the parameter 'solarDatetime', suggesting this tool is for retrieving almanac data for specific dates. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getBaziDetail or getSolarTimes, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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