Chinese Zodiac Animal

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by noting the Lichun/Feb 4 cutoff and the full pillar output, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like error handling or data limits. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus an example and a group label. It front-loads the key output (animal sign and pillar) immediately, with no wasted words. Every sentence provides essential information.

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?

Given no output schema, the description could elaborate on the format of the returned pillar or additional data. However, it covers the core outputs (animal sign, stem, branch, element) and includes an example request, making it reasonably complete for a calculator tool.

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%, so all 7 parameters are fully described in the schema. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 explicitly states it computes the 'animal sign of birth year' and 'full pillar (stem + branch + element)', clearly differentiating from siblings like chinese_zodiac_compatibility or chinese_zodiac_element. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 no explicit 'when to use' vs alternatives is given, the description and example request body imply the tool is for computing the basic animal and pillar. Among many Chinese zodiac siblings, the purpose is unique enough that no further guidance is needed.

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