Weekly Horoscope

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: 'AI-written, ephemeris-grounded' and a cost note. However, the example request body shows parameters (natal, weekStart) not in the schema, which could mislead about actual tool behavior. Annotations already cover readOnly and idempotent nature, so the description adds limited value.

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 short and front-loaded, but it includes a misleading example with parameters not in the schema. The cost and group metadata are useful but add to visual clutter. Overall, it is moderately concise but structurally flawed.

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?

With 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should provide more context about parameter usage and expected output. It includes cost and group info but lacks explanation of what the response contains or how to use the parameters correctly. The inconsistent example further reduces completeness.

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 0%. The description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (sign, date, language, disclaimer_inline). The example request body includes a completely different set of parameters (natal, weekStart) not in the schema, creating confusion rather than clarity. This significantly hinders correct invocation.

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 generates a weekly horoscope with a 7-day window, key transit events, and themes, and notes it is AI-written and ephemeris-grounded. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like horoscope_daily or horoscope_monthly, and the example request body includes parameters not in the schema, causing some confusion.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other horoscope tools (e.g., horoscope_daily, horoscope_monthly). The group label '[Group: Horoscope]' is too vague. Without explicit usage context, an agent cannot easily decide when to invoke this tool.

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