geometry

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations, detailing the full return structure: cosmic_card_a/b, connections, overall_score, temporal_context, and ordering semantics (spread_pos sort order). It also explains aliases like 'Cosmic card = birth = life = sun' and the payload_scope in temporal_context. No contradictions with the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations.

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 front-loaded with usage, exclusions, and requirements before diving into output details. It is dense and well-organized, but the single continuous block of text with heavy semicolon use makes it less scannable than it could be.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: it lists all major fields, nested structures, cultural name variants, and temporal_context bands. The agent has enough information to invoke the tool and interpret complex 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 already fully describes both parameters with format, Person A/B semantics, and the 'not a roster' clarification, so the description adds little new parameter-level information beyond restating that both are required. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's exact purpose: comparing exactly two people by Gregorian date. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming get_date for single-date queries and get_name for name-based queries.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including which sibling tool to use instead for one-date or name scenarios. It also clarifies the requirement for both date_a and date_b parameters.

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?

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses key behavioral details such as 'spread_pos (1-14 canonical Life-spread order; midheaven=13, phoenix=14 — sort by spread_pos; jsonb object keys are unordered)', the temporal_context band/payload_scope, and out-of-range behavior setting cosmic_card_available. These are non-obvious behaviors not inferable from annotations.

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 long and dense, but every section contributes value. It is front-loaded with the primary use case and exclusions, then systematically enumerates return blocks and special attributes. The extensive name list (greek, norse, celtic, etc.) makes it verbose but is necessary given the lack of output schema.

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 tool with no output schema and high complexity, the description is remarkably comprehensive. It enumerates all major return blocks (cosmic, tarot_majors, day_ruler, temporal), details nested structures like planetary_spread and retrogrades_active, explains sorting requirements (spread_pos), and covers edge cases like out-of-range. This gives the agent sufficient information to invoke the tool and 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'date' parameter, providing format and pattern. The description adds semantic context about what dates are valid ('any Gregorian date') and describes out-of-range response behavior, which slightly exceeds the schema baseline but does not introduce new parameter syntax.

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: 'PRIMARY single-date tool' that returns comprehensive date identity data (moon phase, season, retrogrades, calendars, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings with 'NOT for two-person scoring → get_compatibility; name text → get_name', making the scope unmistakable.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'USE for any one Gregorian date when the ask needs...' followed by a detailed list of triggers. It also provides clear exclusions and alternative tool names, which is exactly what an agent needs to select the right tool.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by detailing the return payload ('RETURNS Francis Bacon cards, Latin cipher suite, periodic{} + periodic_set{}, numerology...') and a 'Free-text input guard'. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 densely packed but well-structured with clear USE/NOT/RETURNS sections. Every sentence provides distinct value: usage scope, exclusions with alternatives, and output contents. No fluff or repetition, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers input scope, exclusions, return payload, and a guard. It provides all necessary information for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, including explicit sibling alternatives. No critical gaps remain.

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 fully describes the single parameter 'full_name' with a clear description and 100% schema description coverage. The description only restates the parameter's purpose ('person or word name text only') without adding new semantic details. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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 explicitly states 'USE for person or word name text only' and clearly identifies what the tool does: gematria to cosmic cards plus numerology. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by listing exclusions and alternatives ('NOT for any date questions... → get_date; two people → get_compatibility'). This is a specific verb+resource with clear 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?

It provides explicit when-to-use ('USE for person or word name text only') and when-not-to-use with named alternatives ('NOT for any date questions... → get_date; two people → get_compatibility'). This directly guides the agent to select the correct tool and avoids misuse.

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