get_daily_horoscope

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 explicitly describes the return format as '0-100 + tier + 8 life categories,' giving agents a concrete expectation of the response. The verb 'Get' and the context make it clear this is a read-only lookup, though it does not discuss edge cases or error behavior.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and output summary. The sign list is long but relevant and bilingual, so every segment earns its place. It is concise without sacrificing useful detail.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, which signs it accepts, and the date parameter's default. It does not enumerate the eight life categories, but that level of detail is not required for correct invocation.

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 100%, with both parameters already documented with type, format, and defaults. The description adds the Chinese sign translations and reinforces the sign slug list, but this is supplemental rather than essential. It does not fundamentally expand on the schema-provided semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the daily luck score for a Chinese zodiac sign.' It clearly scopes the operation to zodiac signs and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_personal_lucky_hours and get_daily_almanac. The inclusion of the full sign list in English and Chinese leaves no ambiguity about what the tool targets.

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 implies the tool is for daily luck scores of Chinese zodiac signs, which naturally differentiates it from sibling tools focused on personal lucky hours, almanacs, hour pillars, solar terms, and auspicious dates. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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