Yoga Practice by Sign

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe and repeatable behavior. The description adds that the output includes 'yoga focus + asanas + pranayama', which is helpful but not behavioral. It does not disclose any other traits such as data source, accuracy disclaimers, or limitations. Given the annotations cover the main behavioral aspects, the description provides minimal additional transparency, earning a 3.

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 very concise: one line for the core functionality plus a group tag and an example request. It is front-loaded with the most important information. However, it could include a slightly more detailed explanation of what the tool returns without becoming verbose. The example request is a helpful addition.

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 the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling wellness tools, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the output format (e.g., text, structured data), nor does it guide the agent on how the parameters influence the result (e.g., how date/time determine the sign). It also fails to differentiate from wellness_exercise, which could be seen as overlapping. The agent lacks enough context to fully understand the tool's behavior and output.

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%, meaning all 7 parameters have descriptions (e.g., 'Birth date YYYY-MM-DD', 'House system: P=Placidus...'). The tool description adds no semantic value beyond the schema; it only provides an example request body. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), baseline is 3. No extra parameter info is given, so score 3.

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 'Sign-specific yoga focus + asanas + pranayama', which indicates the tool provides yoga recommendations personalized to the user's zodiac sign. The title 'Yoga Practice by Sign' reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly connect that the sign is derived from the birth data provided in the input, leaving slight ambiguity. Compared to sibling wellness tools like wellness_exercise or wellness_crystals, the purpose is distinct.

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 alternatives like wellness_exercise or wellness_diet. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An AI agent would have to infer from the title alone.

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