get_daily_horoscope

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' data (implying a read-only operation) but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness (e.g., how often horoscopes are updated), or what the return format looks like (since no output schema exists). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that fetches dynamic content.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every element ('获取', '指定星座', '今日运势') contributes 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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that fetches dynamic data like horoscopes. It doesn't explain what the return value includes (e.g., text description, scores, dates), how errors are handled, or any limitations (e.g., only supports specific languages or update frequencies). For a 2-parameter tool with no structured behavioral hints, this leaves the agent with insufficient context.

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%, with both parameters (zodiac and category) well-documented in the schema, including enums and a default value for category. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the zodiac parameter is required ('指定星座'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('今日运势' meaning 'today's horoscope') with a specific scope ('指定星座' meaning 'specified zodiac'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_all_zodiacs (which lists zodiacs) and get_zodiac_info (which provides zodiac information rather than horoscopes). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the optional category parameter, which slightly limits differentiation.

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 implies usage context by specifying '今日运势' (today's horoscope), suggesting it's for current daily readings rather than historical or compatibility data. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_compatibility (for relationship insights) or get_zodiac_by_date (for zodiac lookup by date). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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