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. While it indicates this is a read operation ('获取' - get), it doesn't mention any behavioral traits like error handling (what happens if an invalid zodiac name is provided), response format, whether it's cached, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 - a single sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and lists the types of information returned. There's no wasted language, and it's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose followed by examples of what information is included.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is insufficiently complete. While concise, it doesn't address key contextual elements: what format the zodiac parameter expects, what the response structure looks like, how errors are handled, or how this tool differs from its siblings. For a tool in an ecosystem with multiple similar zodiac-related tools, more contextual information is needed.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information about the 'zodiac' parameter. The description mentions '指定星座' (specified zodiac) but doesn't clarify what format the zodiac name should be in (Chinese vs. English, full names vs. abbreviations), what values are valid, or provide examples. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what's implied by the tool name.

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: '获取指定星座的详细信息，包括性格特征、守护星、元素等' (Get detailed information about a specified zodiac sign, including personality traits, ruling planet, element, etc.). It specifies the verb '获取' (get) and resource '星座的详细信息' (detailed zodiac information), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_zodiac_by_date' or 'get_rising_sign_info' which might provide similar information through different mechanisms.

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_by_date' (which might retrieve zodiac info by date rather than name), 'get_all_zodiacs' (which likely lists all zodiacs), and 'get_rising_sign_info' (which might provide different astrological data), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate versus those alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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