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 states the tool 'determines' a zodiac sign, implying a read-only lookup, but doesn't cover critical behaviors like error handling (e.g., for invalid dates), output format (e.g., string name or object), or any rate limits or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic function.

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: '根据出生日期确定星座' (determine zodiac sign based on birth date). It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clearly stating the action and input.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits (e.g., error handling), and output expectations. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to fully guide the agent, but it doesn't compensate for these gaps.

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 descriptions. The tool description mentions '出生日期' (birth date) but doesn't explain the 'month' and 'day' parameters beyond that, such as valid ranges (e.g., 1-12 for month, 1-31 for day) or format expectations (e.g., integer vs. string). It adds minimal semantic value over the bare schema, failing to compensate for the low 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: '根据出生日期确定星座' (determine zodiac sign based on birth date). It specifies the verb '确定' (determine) and resource '星座' (zodiac sign), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_zodiac_info' or 'get_rising_sign', which might provide different types of zodiac-related 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 siblings such as 'get_zodiac_info' (which might give detailed zodiac characteristics) or 'get_rising_sign' (which calculates a different astrological aspect), leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations.

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