get_compatibility

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 behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves compatibility analysis, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, error handling, authentication needs, or what the output format might be (e.g., numerical index, textual analysis). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of detail is a notable shortfall.

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 a single, efficient sentence: '获取两个星座的配对指数和关系分析'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks crucial details: no usage guidelines, minimal parameter semantics, and no behavioral transparency. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context (e.g., output format, error cases) to be fully helpful for an AI 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?

The input schema has 2 parameters (zodiac1, zodiac2) with 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter details are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond implying two zodiac inputs—it doesn't explain what 'zodiac1' and 'zodiac2' represent (e.g., zodiac signs in Chinese or English, format constraints), leaving parameters largely undocumented. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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's purpose: '获取两个星座的配对指数和关系分析' (Get compatibility index and relationship analysis for two zodiac signs). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('配对指数和关系分析' - compatibility index and relationship analysis), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_zodiac_info' or 'get_rising_sign_info', which might provide different types of zodiac information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_all_zodiacs' (which might list zodiacs) or 'get_daily_horoscope' (which might provide daily predictions), leaving the agent to infer usage context. There's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information, which is a significant gap.

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