Monthly Archive

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.