Animal Compatibility

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description credibly adds context about the scoring range and the underlying canons used. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional behavioral detail.

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 brief and to the point with two clear sentences plus a helpful example. The '[Group: ...]' tag adds minimal value but does not detract. No extraneous content.

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?

Despite clear annotations, the description lacks details on return value structure, prerequisites (e.g., valid dates), or how timezone/location affect scoring. The schema-input mismatch is not addressed, leaving the agent underinformed for a fairly complex compatibility calculation 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?

While schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters individually, the actual input structure expected (two persons with date, lat, lon, tz) conflicts with the flat schema showing only one set of fields. The example in the description hints at the correct structure (person1, person2), but the description does not explain this mismatch or clarify the intended input format, leading to confusion.

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 it computes a 'Pair compatibility score (0-100)' using specific Chinese zodiac canons (San He trine, Liu Chong conflict-pair), making the tool's purpose precise and distinct from sibling tools like 'vedic_compatibility' or 'horoscope_compatibility'.

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 implicitly defines usage for Chinese zodiac compatibility scoring but does not explicitly contrast with alternative compatibility tools or specify when to use this over others. No exclusion criteria or usage context is provided.

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