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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important default behavior that an omitted 'sign' returns all twelve signs rather than nothing or an error. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or freshness of the data, which are the remaining behavioral unknowns.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the parameterized behavior. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers the one thing the schema leaves ambiguous: what happens when 'sign' is omitted and what format values the parameter accepts. Only the daily/weekly/monthly scope distinction is left implicit.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it specifies the accepted format (English, lowercase) and supplies a concrete example ('leo'), which the schema's bare string/null anyOf does not convey. Noting the null default's meaning also fills a real gap.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: it returns the daily horoscope, either for all twelve signs or for one named sign. 'Daily' plus the tool name cleanly separates it from weekly_horoscope and monthly_horoscope, but those siblings are never named, so the differentiation relies on the reader's inference.

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?

It clearly states the two operating modes and which one applies: omit 'sign' for all twelve signs, supply 'sign' for a single sign. That is genuine when-to-use context, though no exclusions or explicit sibling alternatives (weekly/monthly) are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only repeats what the tool returns ('conteo') and does not disclose any operational traits such as read-only nature (implied but unstated), authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It directly states the resource and the additional count information without unnecessary preamble.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema covering return values, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is the absence of usage context, but the core operation and output shape are fully conveyed.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has no parameters to describe and the baseline score is 4. The description appropriately does not need to compensate for any missing parameter details.

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 states a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('tipos de evento disponibles'), making clear it enumerates event types with counts. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'events_upcoming', which could also list events, so it falls short of full sibling 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'events_upcoming' or when not to use it. Usage is only implied by the bare statement of what it does.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing but says nothing about ordering, timezone, how results are paginated/capped, or how limit/min_importance affect output. With five parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant 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?

A single efficient sentence with no wasted words, and the scope and category list are front-loaded. It is under-specified rather than padded, so conciseness itself is fine.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a five-parameter tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage the description is far too thin. It should at least clarify the filter parameters and default window behavior.

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 0% and the description only implicitly maps 'N días' to the days parameter and gestures at kind via the category list. It says nothing about kind values, limit, from_date, or min_importance (including what importance scale is used), leaving four of five parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 gives a specific verb-less but clear resource ('eventos astrológicos') with a scope ('próximos N días') and enumerates the event categories (retrogradaciones, lunaciones, eclipses, cambios de signo). This distinguishes it reasonably from horoscope siblings and from event_kinds, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as event_kinds (which presumably lists the categories) or the horoscope tools. The agent must infer the use case purely from the one-line scope.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not state that this is a read-only, side-effect-free probe, whether it requires authentication, or what a failure looks like. For a zero-parameter health check the behavioral surface is small, but the description still leaves the safety profile entirely implicit.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded and free of waste. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool, though the terseness is closer to under-specification than to economical precision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and there are no parameters or nested objects to cover. However, with zero annotations the definition should at least confirm read-only/non-mutating behavior and auth expectations; as written it is only minimally adequate for even this simple 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any inputs, and the schema is empty as expected.

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 says the tool reports the API service status, which is understandable, but it largely restates the name/title (health_check / Health Check) rather than adding a distinct verb or scope. Sibling tools are all astrology-domain names, so there is no real risk of confusion, but the definition does nothing to distinguish itself beyond the name.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or any alternative. A reader can only infer that it is for checking service health from the name itself. No prerequisites, timing, or context is given.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether a missing/未archived month errors or returns empty, not the auth requirements, not pagination or response shape. Only the read-only nature is implicitly conveyed by 'archivado'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and both parameter constraints are packed in without redundancy.

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 exists so return values need not be explained, but with 0% parameter coverage, no annotations, and three similarly named siblings, the definition leaves the agent guessing about valid sign values and when this tool is the right choice.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real value for yyyy_mm by giving the format and a concrete example ('2026-03'), but says nothing about valid values for sign (no enum, no list of zodiac signs), leaving half the parameters underspecified.

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?

States a specific resource (archived monthly horoscope) scoped to a sign and month, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like monthly_horoscope or monthly_archive_list, leaving the 'archived' vs 'current' vs 'list' boundary to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative. The word 'archivado' faintly implies past months, but nothing tells the agent when to pick this over monthly_horoscope or monthly_archive_list, nor what prerequisites exist.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but the tool is a zero-parameter read that only enumerates archives, so little needs disclosing. It confirms the scope is "todos ... disponibles" yet says nothing about ordering, filtering, or whether archived data is read-only.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and scope arrive immediately and nothing is repeated from the name or title.

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?

An output schema exists and the tool has no inputs, so the description does not need to explain return values. What it lacks is any hint of how the listed archives relate to the sibling monthly_archive 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes nothing on the description and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter meaning needs to be added.

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 names a specific verb ("Lista") and resource ("meses-signo archivados disponibles"), so the agent knows this enumerates available archives rather than retrieving one. It stops short of differentiating itself from the sibling monthly_archive, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

Usage is only implied: a tool that lists what is available is naturally a discovery step before calling monthly_archive, but the description never says so or states any precondition. No when-not guidance and no named alternative.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the default behavior (returns all twelve signs when no sign is given), but does not state read-only nature, side effects, or any other operational traits.

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, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the parameter behavior. No waste; every word 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?

For a simple read tool with an output schema, the description covers the key parameter behavior and is adequate. However, it omits valid sign values and any routing guidance relative to sibling horoscope tools, leaving minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the effect of omitting vs providing 'sign', which adds meaningful semantics, but it does not specify valid sign values, format, or case sensitivity.

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 restates the title 'Monthly Horoscope' without a specific verb, so the core purpose is vague. It adds behavioral detail about the 'sign' parameter, but does not clearly distinguish itself from siblings like daily_horoscope or monthly_overview.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as daily_horoscope, weekly_horoscope, or monthly_overview. The parameter behavior is described, but that is not usage context relative to other tools.

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

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 implies a read-only content retrieval by calling the output an 'article,' but never states that it has no side effects, does not require authentication, or returns static versus generated 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the resource and its scope without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a no-parameter content tool.

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?

With an output schema present and no parameters, the description does not need to explain return values or inputs. The main gap is contextual: it does not help an agent select this tool over similar siblings like monthly_horoscope, leaving the definition minimally viable for invocation but weak for discovery.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are none to describe.

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 names a specific resource ('Artículo') and its scope ('visión general astrológica del mes'), so an agent knows it returns a monthly astrological overview article. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling monthly_horoscope or monthly_archive, leaving ambiguity about which monthly content to request.

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 no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as monthly_horoscope, monthly_archive, or week_ahead. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or routing hints, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state that this is a read-only retrieval, whether the article is localized or cached, how often the content refreshes, or whether it requires any authorization — all of which matter for a content endpoint with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but it wastes no words.

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 tool has no inputs and a declared output schema, so the return value does not need explaining. For a zero-parameter content fetch, one clear sentence plus the output schema is close to sufficient; the only real omission is usage context, which is scored separately.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies: no parameter semantics gap exists.

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 names a specific resource ('artículo sobre la fase lunar actual'), so an agent knows it returns article content about the current moon phase rather than raw astronomical data. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like natal or transit_today, but the resource is distinctive enough to be separable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling astrology/astronomy tools, nor any stated prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the resource name itself.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the supplied hour is local to the coordinates and that the timezone is resolved automatically, which is important operational context. However, it does not state that this is a read-only calculation, nor does it mention auth or rate-limit behavior.

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 sentences with no filler, front-loading the outputs followed by the time-handling caveat. Every sentence earns its place and the information is easy to parse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But with no annotations and 0% parameter schema coverage, the description is incomplete about input parameters and when to use the tool; it only covers purpose and timezone behavior.

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 0%, so all seven parameters lack descriptions. The description clarifies that hour is local time and that timezone is auto-resolved, which adds context for the date/time parameters, but it does not explain lat/lon units or ranges, nor the date/time format. It partially compensates but falls short for a seven-parameter schema.

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?

States a specific resource set: planetary positions, house cusps, and aspects for a birth moment. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling astrology tools such as transit_today or daily_horoscope; the 'natal' name and 'momento de nacimiento' phrase imply a birth chart but no sibling routing is provided.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative tools are mentioned. The description explains time handling but gives no criteria for choosing this tool over siblings like transit_today or moon_phase.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the external backend (OpenStreetMap Nominatim), signaling a network dependency and third-party rate limits, but says nothing about behavior on no-match, ambiguity, or whether the call is read-only.

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?

One compact sentence with the operation front-loaded and the consumer plus backend tucked into a trailing clause. Every element earns its place; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool is a simple single-parameter lookup. The description covers what it does and its backend; only failure/no-match behavior is left unstated, which is a minor gap for a geocoder.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'q' is undocumented in the schema. The description implies q is a place name ('nombre de lugar'), which is meaningful, but it gives no format, language, or disambiguation guidance for the query string.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it converts a place name into coordinates. It also ties the output to the downstream consumer (/natal), which distinguishes it from the horoscope/transit siblings. It never literally uses a 'search' verb despite the tool name, leaving a small mismatch with the identifier.

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 purpose clause implies the tool is a prerequisite for /natal, so the agent can infer when to call it, but there is no explicit when/when-not statement and no mention of alternatives or that it is a network-backed external lookup.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only, non-personalized daily article but never states whether the content is generated per user, whether a natal chart is required, how it is refreshed, or any auth/permission needs.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for the amount of routing ambiguity it leaves unresolved.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a content-fetch tool sitting among many horoscope/transit siblings, the definition leaves the agent without any selection criteria or personalization 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic load and the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds nothing about inputs, though it also gives no hint about output shape.

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 names a specific resource — today's astrological transits — as an article, so an agent can tell what content comes back. It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings like daily_horoscope, week_ahead, or moon_phase, so routing between them remains ambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no mention of how this differs from daily_horoscope or week_ahead. The agent must infer the selection rule entirely from the name.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only identifies the tool as an astrological forecast for the next seven days; it discloses nothing about read-only nature, caching, rate limits, authentication, or response behavior beyond the stated temporal scope.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It directly states the purpose without extraneous detail.

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 parameterless tool with an output schema, the description adequately states the core purpose. However, it omits sibling differentiation and usage context, which are important given the presence of similar horoscope tools.

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?

The tool accepts zero parameters, so by rule the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since the input schema is empty and fully specified.

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 states a clear resource and scope: 'Astrological forecast for the next seven days.' It is specific enough for an agent to know what the tool provides, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like weekly_horoscope or daily_horoscope, which may overlap in function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as weekly_horoscope, daily_horoscope, or monthly_horoscope. The description simply states what it is, leaving usage conditions to inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the branching return behavior (twelve signs without 'sign', one with it), which is useful, but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or caching. The output schema covers the return format, so that gap is acceptable.

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, zero filler, with the default (no-sign) behavior stated first and the override second. Nothing to trim.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers both execution paths adequately. The only residual gap is that an agent still cannot know which literal sign values are accepted.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it clearly defines the semantics of the optional 'sign' parameter (presence selects a single sign, absence returns all twelve). It does not, however, enumerate the valid sign strings, which the schema leaves as an unrestricted string.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: returns the weekly horoscope, and the adjective 'semanal' implicitly distinguishes it from daily_horoscope and monthly_horoscope siblings. However, it never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 explains the two modes of operation (all twelve signs vs. a single sign), which is implied usage guidance, but it never states when to prefer this tool over daily_horoscope or monthly_horoscope, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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