get_rising_sign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool calculates a rising sign but doesn't describe the output format, error conditions, computational complexity, or any side effects. For a calculation tool with 7 required parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that states the purpose and lists the three categories of required inputs. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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?

For a calculation tool with 7 required parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., zodiac sign name, degree, house position), how precise the calculation is, or what happens with invalid inputs. With no annotations and no output schema, users have no idea what to expect from this 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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly with ranges and descriptions. The description adds minimal value by grouping parameters into '出生时间、地点和日期' (birth time, location, and date) but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose: '计算上升星座' (calculate rising sign) with specific required inputs (birth time, location, and date). It distinguishes from siblings like get_rising_sign_info (which likely provides information rather than calculation) and get_zodiac_by_date (which uses date only). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.

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. It lists required inputs but doesn't mention when to choose this over get_rising_sign_info or other zodiac-related tools, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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