star

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('get daily horoscope') without any information about permissions, rate limits, response format, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented for the agent.

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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 2 parameters (one required), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or provide enough parameter guidance. For a tool with this complexity and lack of structured data, it should do more to help the agent understand usage.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions '指定星座' (specified zodiac), which hints at the 'zodiac' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'category' parameter at all. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap, leaving one parameter completely undocumented and the other only partially explained.

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 action ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('今日运势' meaning 'daily horoscope') with the specific scope of '指定星座' (specified zodiac). It distinguishes from siblings like get_all_zodiacs (lists zodiacs) and get_zodiac_info (gets zodiac information) by focusing on daily horoscope retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_compatibility or get_rising_sign, which serve different purposes.

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 when-not scenarios, prerequisites, or compare with siblings like get_zodiac_by_date (which might retrieve horoscopes by date rather than 'today'). The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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