star

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (calculates rising sign) but doesn't describe the return format, error conditions, computational characteristics, or any side effects. For a calculation tool with 7 required parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps for an AI 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 extremely concise with a single sentence that states the purpose and required inputs. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core function followed by parameter requirements, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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 (7 required parameters for astrological calculation), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a rising sign is, the calculation methodology, output format, or error handling. For a specialized calculation tool, this leaves too many contextual gaps for reliable agent 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions '需要出生时间、地点和日期' (requires birth time, location, and date), which maps to the 7 parameters at a high level but provides no details about units (e.g., hour format, coordinate system), ranges, or relationships between parameters. This adds minimal semantic value beyond what parameter names suggest.

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 as '计算上升星座' (calculate rising sign) with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_zodiac_by_date or get_daily_horoscope by focusing on astrological calculation rather than general zodiac information or horoscopes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_rising_sign_info, which might provide information about rising signs rather than calculating them.

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_rising_sign_info (which might provide information rather than calculation) or get_zodiac_by_date (which might determine sun sign). There's no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions for this calculation tool.

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