star

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 only states what the tool does ('获取所有星座的基本信息列表'), without mentioning any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or what format the list returns. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence: '获取所有星座的基本信息列表'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence directly contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (a list retrieval tool with no parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'basic information' includes, how the list is structured (e.g., array of objects), or any behavioral context like error handling. For a tool with no structured data to rely on, the description should provide more completeness to guide the agent effectively.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters. No additional value is required beyond stating the tool's purpose.

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: '获取所有星座的基本信息列表' (Get a list of basic information for all zodiac signs). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('所有星座的基本信息列表' - list of basic zodiac information), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_zodiac_info' or 'get_zodiac_by_date', which prevents a perfect score.

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. With siblings like 'get_zodiac_info' (likely for a single zodiac) and 'get_zodiac_by_date' (likely for zodiac by date), there's no indication that this tool is for retrieving all zodiacs at once versus filtered or individual queries. This leaves the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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