vedika_chinese_zodiac

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the exact returned fields, the CNY boundary behavior, and the per-call cost ($0.003), which an agent needs for budgeting. It stops short of explicitly stating the operation is read-only and side-effect free.

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?

Three compact sentences: purpose first, return contents second, edge case and cost last. No filler or 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates return values, and the parameters are fully covered by the schema. An agent has everything required to invoke it correctly.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the Jan/Feb caveat. The description reinforces the birth-year framing but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Get Chinese zodiac animal sign and element for a birth year,' followed by an enumerated list of returned fields. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the closely related sibling vedika_chinese_bazi to distinguish scope.

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 implied by the 'birth year' framing and the Chinese New Year caveat, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to alternatives such as vedika_chinese_bazi or vedika_compatibility. An agent must infer the routing.

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