calculate_chinese_zodiac

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Determine... Returns: {full_sign}' without addressing side effects, authentication, rate limits, or handling of invalid inputs (e.g., years outside range, though schema enforces min/max). The lack of behavioral context 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?

The description is short with two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. It is not verbose, but the lack of additional detail slightly reduces its conciseness value.

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 one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers basic purpose and output format. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, making it minimally adequate but not 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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'birth_year', and the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema description already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 determines Chinese zodiac animal and element from birth year, with specific verb 'Determine' and resource. The return format '{full_sign}' is mentioned. While distinct among many siblings, it does not explicitly differentiate from potential similar zodiac calculators, but the name is sufficiently specific.

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 includes 'See list_bundles for related fun calculators,' which hints at alternatives but does not specify when to use this tool vs others or provide exclusions. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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