get_solar_terms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by revealing minute-level precision, the JPL DE440s ephemeris source, an example output value, and the current-year ±1 range. It stops short of describing full output structure or timezone handling, but this is a simple getter.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and resource. The bilingual phrasing is slightly redundant but adds useful context for the intended audience, and every remaining clause contributes precision, example, or constraints.

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?

This is a low-complexity single-parameter tool with no output schema, so the description is mostly sufficient: it names the return concept, gives an example, specifies precision, and states the valid range. It could more explicitly state the full output shape or timezone, but nothing critical prevents an agent from calling it correctly.

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 schema already documents the year parameter with range and free-tier note. The description mostly restates this with 'Range: current year ±1' and adds an example year, so it does not add substantial semantic value beyond the 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 states a specific action ('Get the 24 solar terms of a year') and adds precision details, data source (JPL DE440s), and a concrete example. This makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_daily_almanac or get_personal_lucky_hours.

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 when to use the tool: whenever a full year's solar terms are needed. However, it gives no explicit comparison to sibling tools, no exclusion criteria, and no guidance on when a sibling would be more appropriate.

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