Get Birthdays

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does convey behavioral domain scope by naming the entity classes covered, and 'Query' signals a read-only operation, but it says nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior with the limit default, or rate limits. An output schema exists, so return shape need not be covered, but the domain scope alone is thin disclosure for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 subject and scope come first and every clause earns its place. It is not padded with restated parameter documentation.

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 full parameter coverage, the description need not explain returns or arguments, so the remaining gap is selection context: the boundary with get_upcoming_birthdays (near-future dates) and search_person is unstated, leaving the agent to guess which date-oriented tool fits. Adequate but with a clear, selection-relevant gap.

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 every parameter (day, month, limit, country, categories, occupation) is already documented in the schema with examples such as 'CN', 'Japan', and '作家'. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction guidance beyond that, which is the expected baseline when 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 gives a specific verb ('Query') plus the resource and its scope: entities born on a specific month and day, with the entity types enumerated (celebrities, historical figures, anime/game characters). An agent immediately understands this is a date-indexed lookup. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_upcoming_birthdays, which a reader must infer from 'specific month and day'.

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?

Use is only implied: the phrase 'born on a specific month and day' signals the scenario (you already have a month/day pair), but there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_upcoming_birthdays or search_person, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Nothing misleading, but nothing explicitly routing the agent either.

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