Determine China's 1986–1991 daylight saving time status for a clock time, or get the full DST table for BaZi birth-time conversion.
China daylight saving time 1986–1991: the full table, or the status of one clock time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| datetime | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys the historical validity window (1986–1991) but says nothing about what happens for out-of-range input, how ambiguous/duplicated clock times during transitions are resolved, or the shape of the returned table/status. For a reference tool with zero 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?
A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with no filler. It is slightly cryptic ('status of one clock time') but every clause earns its place.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return values and error behavior more fully. It covers the two-mode contract adequately but leaves the agent guessing about output format, out-of-range handling, and timezone interpretation.
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% for the single 'datetime' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does partially by implying datetime means 'one clock time' whose DST status is returned, and that omitting it yields the full table, but it gives no format, timezone, or range constraints for the value.
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 resource and scope ('China daylight saving time 1986–1991') plus the two modes of output (full table vs. status of one clock time). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never differentiates itself from the time-related siblings (true_solar_time, solar_terms), leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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 phrase 'the full table, or the status of one clock time' implicitly tells the agent when to omit vs. supply datetime, which is genuine routing guidance. However, no explicit when-to-use framing, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling tools or edge cases (e.g. datetimes outside 1986–1991).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.