cn402_zodiac

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does mention 'Price: unknown on Base (auto-paid in USDC)', hinting at a cost, but fails to state whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or has any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that may incur cost.

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 moderately concise, with two paragraphs. The first paragraph lists many synonymous terms which, while redundant, ensures cultural relevance. The second paragraph contains the functional core and price note. Could be more concise but is not verbose.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete: it states the return values include animal, element, and sexagenary name. It also adds pricing context. However, it does not specify the format or structure of the response, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 'year', which is described as 'Year YYYY (optional, default current year)'. The description reinforces this with 'for any year' but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 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?

Description explicitly states 'Get the Chinese zodiac animal for any year, including element and 60-year sexagenary name', lists all 12 animals in English and Chinese, and includes terms like '生肖' and 'shengxiao', making the purpose extremely clear and distinct from sibling tools like cn402_fengshui_*, cn402_iching_*, cn402_tcm_*, etc.

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 implicitly tells the user when to use this tool: when they need the Chinese zodiac animal, element, or sexagenary name for a year. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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