get_rising_sign

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and idempotent, lowering the bar. The description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee by explicitly forbidding inference or guessing. It does not, however, explain what happens if time is omitted or unknown_time is true, which is a notable behavioral gap.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the critical constraint is stated immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, but the description leaves an important ambiguity: the schema allows omitting time and setting unknown_time, while the description insists exact birth time is required. It is unclear whether the tool errors, returns null, or refuses when time is absent. This is a meaningful completeness gap for a 7-parameter 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 71%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds little parameter-level meaning: it maps 'birth date, exact birth time, and location' to the inputs but does not clarify the discrepancy between 'exact birth time required' and the schema's optional time plus unknown_time flag.

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 a specific verb ('Calculate') and a specific resource ('the Ascendant (Rising sign)'), with the required inputs. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_big_three, which may also provide the rising sign as part of a larger result.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: an exact birth time is required, and the tool must never be used to infer or guess a rising sign. This is a useful when-to-use/when-not-to-use signal, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or explain when to prefer a sibling tool.

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