Return brief and full descriptions for an astrological house (1–12).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | Yes | House number 1–12 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that the tool returns both brief and full descriptions, which is useful, but it does not disclose additional behaviors such as error handling or data format specifics beyond what annotations and schema provide.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential purpose and scope efficiently.
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?
This is a simple lookup tool with a fully specified schema, output schema, and annotations. The description is sufficient for the agent to understand what the tool does; there is no significant missing context given the low complexity.
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 parameter 'number', which already describes the valid range. The description does not add further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool returns 'brief and full descriptions for an astrological house (1–12)'. This specifies the verb, resource, and scope, and distinguishes it from siblings like get_planet or get_sign.
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 when house descriptions are needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_sign or get_aspect. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct astrological function: reference lookups (sign, planet, house, aspect), chart calculations (birth_chart, planetary_positions), transit analysis (current_transits, transit_search), progression, calendar generation, and prompt management. Even similar tools like current_transits and transit_search are clearly differentiated by scope (current vs. period-based).
Naming is largely lowercase_snake_case but inconsistent in verb usage: get_* for reference lookups, while others are noun phrases (birth_chart, planetary_positions) or arbitrary verbs (generate_calendar_events). The pattern is readable but not uniform across the set.
12 tools is well within the ideal range for a domain-specific server. Each tool covers a distinct need without redundancy, and the count feels balanced for an astrology API.
The tool surface covers the core astrological workflow: reference data (signs, planets, houses, aspects), chart generation (birth, positions), transits, progressions, and calendar events. The inclusion of prompt tools also supports interpretation, leaving no obvious dead ends.