Weekly 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. 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.