getAlmanac

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully enumerates the return payload (lunar date, auspicious/inauspicious activities, directional gods), which signals a read-only lookup, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or data source/accuracy caveats.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and return contents enumerated. The bilingual repetition of the same sentence adds length without new information, though it does serve non-English callers.

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, the description must describe returns, and it does list the key fields while noting 'and more'. For a simple zero-required-param lookup this is nearly complete; only the exact payload shape remains unspecified.

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% and the single solarDatetime parameter is fully documented in the schema (ISO format, defaults to today China time). The description only refers to 'a specific date', adding no format or default semantics beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (Chinese almanac/黄历) scoped to a date, plus an outline of the return contents. An agent can distinguish this from the numeric/chart siblings (getBaziChart, calculateBoneWeight), though the description never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource itself — fetch almanac data for a given day — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives among the sibling tools. Adequate but leaves selection entirely to inference.

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