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 it retrieves a list of basic information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it's paginated, sorted, or what 'basic information' includes (e.g., names, dates, traits). It lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 in Chinese that directly states the purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list-retrieval tool, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by specifying the return format).

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format (e.g., list structure, fields included) and behavioral context. For a tool with siblings, more differentiation would improve completeness.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly implies no inputs are required by not mentioning any. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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' meaning 'get') and resource ('所有星座的基本信息列表' meaning 'all zodiacs basic information list'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_zodiac_info' or 'get_zodiac_by_date', which likely retrieve specific zodiac information rather than all zodiacs.

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 any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_zodiac_info' (for details on a single zodiac) or 'get_zodiac_by_date' (for zodiac by date).

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

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 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like. 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format. With no output schema, the agent must infer return values from the description alone, which is insufficient for full completeness.

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 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the input schema (including descriptions and enums). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('获取' meaning 'get') and the resource ('配对指数和关系分析' meaning 'compatibility index and relationship analysis'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on daily horoscopes, zodiac information, or rising signs. It precisely communicates what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 like get_zodiac_info or get_daily_horoscope. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone.

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

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 'gets' data (implying a read-only operation) but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness (e.g., how often horoscopes are updated), or what the return format looks like (since no output schema exists). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that fetches dynamic content.

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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every element ('获取', '指定星座', '今日运势') contributes essential information.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that fetches dynamic data like horoscopes. It doesn't explain what the return value includes (e.g., text description, scores, dates), how errors are handled, or any limitations (e.g., only supports specific languages or update frequencies). For a 2-parameter tool with no structured behavioral hints, this leaves the agent with insufficient context.

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 (zodiac and category) well-documented in the schema, including enums and a default value for category. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the zodiac parameter is required ('指定星座'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('今日运势' meaning 'today's horoscope') with a specific scope ('指定星座' meaning 'specified zodiac'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_all_zodiacs (which lists zodiacs) and get_zodiac_info (which provides zodiac information rather than horoscopes). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the optional category parameter, which slightly limits differentiation.

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 usage context by specifying '今日运势' (today's horoscope), suggesting it's for current daily readings rather than historical or compatibility data. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_compatibility (for relationship insights) or get_zodiac_by_date (for zodiac lookup by date). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool calculates a rising sign but doesn't describe the output format, error conditions, computational complexity, or any side effects. For a calculation tool with 7 required parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 states the purpose and lists the three categories of required inputs. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 calculation tool with 7 required parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., zodiac sign name, degree, house position), how precise the calculation is, or what happens with invalid inputs. With no annotations and no output schema, users have no idea what to expect from this tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly with ranges and descriptions. The description adds minimal value by grouping parameters into '出生时间、地点和日期' (birth time, location, and date) but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: '计算上升星座' (calculate rising sign) with specific required inputs (birth time, location, and date). It distinguishes from siblings like get_rising_sign_info (which likely provides information rather than calculation) and get_zodiac_by_date (which uses date only). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it from a perfect 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. It lists required inputs but doesn't mention when to choose this over get_rising_sign_info or other zodiac-related tools, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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

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 behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what '详细信息' (detailed information) entails, such as the structure or content of the returned data. For a tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to interpret results.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with a clear enum list for the 'risingSign' parameter. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the significance of the rising sign or how the information is structured. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('获取' meaning 'get') and the resource ('指定上升星座的详细信息' meaning 'detailed information of a specified rising sign'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_rising_sign' or 'get_zodiac_info', which might have overlapping functions.

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 such as 'get_rising_sign' and 'get_zodiac_info', there's no indication of how this tool differs in scope or context, leaving the agent to guess based on names alone.

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

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' zodiac signs, implying a read-only lookup operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like error handling for invalid dates, cultural assumptions (e.g., Western zodiac), or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded with a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted text, and every word earns its place by clearly communicating the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., zodiac name, symbol, dates), how it handles invalid inputs, or any dependencies on sibling tools. For a lookup tool with no structured output, more context is needed to understand the full behavior.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema already provides. With 100% schema description coverage, both parameters (month and day) are fully documented in the schema with descriptions and constraints. The description doesn't compensate with additional context like date format examples or edge cases, meeting the baseline for high schema 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). This is a specific verb+resource combination that explains what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_zodiac_info' or 'get_rising_sign', which might provide 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. With siblings like 'get_zodiac_info' and 'get_rising_sign', there's no indication of whether this tool is for basic lookup, detailed information, or compatibility purposes. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it '获取' (gets/retrieves) information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly confirm this or mention other behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('获取指定星座的详细信息') and lists included details. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from details).

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 1 parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool returns (personality traits, ruling planet, element), compensating for the lack of output schema. However, with no annotations and multiple siblings, it should provide more context on usage and behavior to be fully complete.

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 the single parameter 'zodiac' fully documented in the schema (including enum values in Chinese and English). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying it takes a zodiac sign. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 differentiate from siblings like 'get_all_zodiacs' or 'get_zodiac_by_date' beyond the '指定' (specified) qualifier.

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 like 'get_all_zodiacs' (for listing all zodiacs), 'get_zodiac_by_date' (for finding zodiac by date), or 'get_compatibility' (for zodiac relationships). The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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