calculateBoneWeight

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the computational model (weights assigned to birth year/month/day/hour) and the return shape (destiny poem with interpretation), but says nothing about determinism, calendar conversion assumptions, or whether the input timezone matters.

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 English sentence is well front-loaded, but the Chinese sentence restates the same content in full, and the 'exclusive to chinese-astrology-skill' claim adds no actionable information. Roughly a third of the text is redundant, though total length stays modest.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what goes in, what computation happens, and what comes back (poem plus interpretation), so an agent has enough to call it correctly. It falls short only on edge-case behavior such as solar/lunar handling and timezone expectations.

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% for the single solarDatetime parameter, so the schema already carries the format and example. The description adds only that the datetime is decomposed into year/month/day/hour weights, which is marginal semantic value. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (calculate bone weight fortune) and identifies the underlying method (Yuan Tiangang's Tang Dynasty 秤骨算命), which is enough to separate it from getBaziChart or getAlmanac. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 the usage context (you want a bone-weight fortune rather than a Bazi chart or almanac), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The 'exclusive to chinese-astrology-skill' note is a namespace remark, not routing guidance.

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