get_zodiac_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it '获取' (gets/retrieves) information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly confirm this or mention other behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('获取指定星座的详细信息') and lists included details. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from details).

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 1 parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool returns (personality traits, ruling planet, element), compensating for the lack of output schema. However, with no annotations and multiple siblings, it should provide more context on usage and behavior to be fully complete.

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 the single parameter 'zodiac' fully documented in the schema (including enum values in Chinese and English). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying it takes a zodiac sign. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 tool's purpose: '获取指定星座的详细信息，包括性格特征、守护星、元素等' (Get detailed information about a specified zodiac sign, including personality traits, ruling planet, element, etc.). It specifies the verb '获取' (get) and resource '星座的详细信息' (detailed zodiac information), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_all_zodiacs' or 'get_zodiac_by_date' beyond the '指定' (specified) qualifier.

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 doesn't mention siblings like 'get_all_zodiacs' (for listing all zodiacs), 'get_zodiac_by_date' (for finding zodiac by date), or 'get_compatibility' (for zodiac relationships). The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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