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 without mentioning any traits like read-only status, potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs. 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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it highly concise and well-structured for its intended use.

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 of a tool with 1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter semantics, and output format, making it inadequate for the agent to fully understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, meaning the parameter 'risingSign' is undocumented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'risingSign' represents, valid values, or format. It fails to compensate for the low coverage, resulting in a poor score.

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 verb '获取' (get) and the resource '指定上升星座的详细信息' (detailed information of a specified rising sign), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_rising_sign' or 'get_zodiac_info', which might offer similar or overlapping functionality, so it misses the highest 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_rising_sign' and 'get_zodiac_info' available, it lacks explicit instructions on context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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