Get the zodiac sign (Western astrology) for a birth date, with element, nickname, date range, and a guide link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| birthday | Yes | The baby's birth date as YYYY-MM-DD (not in the future). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (element, nickname, date range, guide link) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free. Basic transparency is achieved but could be more explicit.
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 a single, concise sentence of 19 words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output without unnecessary elaboration, making every word count.
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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the inputs and expected outputs. It mentions four output attributes, which is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's capability, though the exact format is left 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?
The schema provides full description coverage (100%) for the single 'birthday' parameter. The description adds a valuable constraint ('not in the future') that is not present in the schema, thus enhancing comprehensibility beyond the structured definition.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves the Western zodiac sign for a birth date, along with additional details like element, nickname, date range, and guide link. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on age or milestones.
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?
While the description implies usage for zodiac sign queries, it does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. The sibling context makes the intended use somewhat clear, but no direct advice is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: age calculation, milestone dates, zodiac sign, and milestone listing. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (get_baby_age, get_milestone_dates, get_zodiac_sign, list_milestones).
Four tools are appropriate for the domain, covering core baby age queries without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool set covers all essential aspects: age calculation, milestone dates, zodiac sign, and a reference list of milestones. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.
