get_hour_pillars

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden and largely meets it: it discloses the fixed 12-pillar output, the two classification buckets, and enumerates all six auspicious and six caution deities so an agent knows what categories to expect. Minor gaps remain — no return format or timezone note — but the fixed, predictable structure of hour pillars keeps these low-risk.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then layers the classification detail. The bilingual Chinese keyword aids matching, and every element — the pillar list, the deity names, the auspicious/caution split — earns its place with no filler.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies sufficient expectations: 12 items, each assigned to an auspicious or caution deity group. It stops short of specifying the JSON shape or edge-case behavior, but the fixed 12-pillar nature makes correct invocation and result interpretation achievable without it.

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 100%: the single date parameter is fully specified with format and pattern. The description's '某日' phrasing merely reaffirms that the date selects the target day, adding no format, range, or syntax information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('12 two-hour pillars 子丑寅卯…'), and a distinctive classification scheme (Yellow/Black Belt deities). It differentiates from siblings like get_daily_almanac and get_personal_lucky_hours by its hour-level granularity and the six-vs-six auspicious/caution deity split, so an agent can accurately tell it apart without opening any schema.

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 clearly frames when this applies — querying the 十二时辰 (two-hour pillar) auspiciousness for a specific date, unlike personal lucky hours or daily-level almanac readings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusion conditions; the routing guidance is inferred from the content, not stated.

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