AstroWay Astrology API (full catalogue)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds that it returns a 'plain-text human-readable summary' and clarifies the budget-checking purpose, providing useful context beyond 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?

Three efficient sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and return format. Front-loaded with key information, no wasted words.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description specifies the return format (plain-text human-readable summary). For a simple status check tool, this is complete and sufficient.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds value by hinting at the output format.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Check' and the resource 'API key status' with specific attributes (tier, credit balance, rate limits, monthly cycle reset). It distinguishes itself from the many sibling astrology calculation tools.

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?

Explicitly instructs to run this tool BEFORE invoking expensive endpoints, providing credit thresholds (Tier 4+ at 100+ credits, Tier 6/7 at 500-5000 credits) to confirm budget.

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, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful guarantee that the emitted schema is the schema the endpoint validates and that the objects carry no vendor-specific fields, but says nothing about cost, rate limits, or response size behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 visible portion is front-loaded on what is returned and the two format shapes, with no filler. It is somewhat terse for a tool with six parameters and a listed default/select semantics, but every visible sentence carries 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent profile. The remaining gap is routing: nothing tells the agent when to choose this over astroway_mcp_tools_list or similar listing tools.

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 every one of the six parameters is already documented in the schema, including the format enum and the select/fields/precision semantics. The description restates the format option rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage applies.

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: returning agent tool definitions generated from the live OpenAPI document, in either OpenAI or Anthropic shape. That is clear enough to differentiate it from report/chart tools in the namespace, but it never names the closest sibling (astroway_mcp_tools_list) or explains the distinction, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no stated alternative. The mention of `format=openai` as the default is parameter behavior, not a usage rule, and the agent is left to infer whether this is for building an agent, curated retrieval, or an MCP tool listing.

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, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: the cost (100 credits, Tier 4) and the AI-interpretation group, but says nothing about rate limits, determinism of the generated text, or latency.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, followed by a short use-case note and two compact metadata tags. No wasted prose, though the group/cost tags are structured metadata rather than prose value.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and cost/group are disclosed. But the description claims the tool interprets 'a single chart element (planet/house/aspect)' while the schema exposes no field for selecting which element — the description leaves that mechanism unexplained.

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% and the body/fields/precision parameters are thoroughly documented in the schema itself, so the description carries no additional parameter burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds nothing about how the target element is identified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('AI interpretation of a single chart element (planet/house/aspect) in context'), and the 'single element' scope implicitly separates it from whole-chart siblings like ai_interpret_natal and synastry. However, it never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 only usage cue is 'Useful for chart-detail pages,' which is a context hint rather than routing guidance. With four near-identical AI-interpretation siblings (natal, placement, synastry, transits), the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative selection rule.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld). The description goes beyond them by disclosing cost (100 credits, Tier 4) and result caching for repeated inputs — both materially affect whether an agent calls it, and repeated calls are hinted non-idempotent yet cached, which is worth knowing. It does not say anything about latency despite the AI-generation nature of the call.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: purpose first, then language support, caching, cost. The bracket tags ([Group], [Cost]) are functional but slightly metadata-ish rather than prose; still, nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and the input schema is fully documented. It covers what the interpretation contains, language options, caching and credit cost for a paid AI-generation endpoint. The remaining gap is the absence of any latency/streaming or failure-mode note for a long-running generative call.

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%, and the nested birth-data schema is exhaustively documented (field names, timezone rules, houseSystem letters, compact-mode fields/precision). The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given the schema carries the full burden — this lands on the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Generate AI interpretation of a natal chart') and enumerates the output content (personality traits, life themes, strongest archetypes). The natal-chart scope implicitly separates it from astroway_ai_interpret_synastry, _transits, _element and _placement, but those siblings are never named, so the agent must infer the division of labor from the tool name alone.

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 never says when to choose this over astroway_ai_interpret_placement or astroway_ai_interpret_synastry, nor what prerequisites exist (a computed chart?). 'Multi-language' and 'token-cached for repeats' are properties, not usage conditions, so selection guidance is left entirely to inference.

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 readOnly, openWorld, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful billing context (100 credits, Tier 4) and scope conciseness, but does not disclose credit deduction timing, latency, or preconditions beyond what the schema covers.

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?

Two compact sentences put the purpose and scope first, followed by terse Group and Cost brackets. Every element earns its place with no filler.

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 rich input schema and an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, group, and cost adequately. It could be more complete about prerequisites or AI-call behavior, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 the body, fields, and precision parameters thoroughly. The description adds domain framing around 'planet+sign+house' but no parameter-level syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('AI interpretation of a specific planet+sign+house combination') and scopes it to the placement only, which distinguishes it from broader natal or synastry interpretations. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives it differs from.

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 phrase 'focused on the placement only' implies usage for a single planet+sign+house reading, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives such as interpret_natal or interpret_element.

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, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the cost (100 credits, Tier 4), which matters for budget-aware agents, but says nothing about latency, whether the interpretation is cached, or the consequences of the non-idempotent hint.

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?

One front-loaded sentence naming the resource and its output facets, plus two bracketed metadata lines for group and cost. Nothing is wasted, though the facet list is slightly padded and no sentence is spent on usage or behavior.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the input schema is exhaustively documented. However, for a paid (100-credit) non-idempotent AI call, the description omits any note on when to prefer it over the other interpretation tools, leaving a gap in routing guidance.

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% and the nested chart objects are richly documented (timezone handling, ayanamsa, houseSystem letters, rejected short forms), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only 'between two charts', which loosely maps to chart1/chart2 but contributes no new parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (AI interpretation) and resource (synastry between two charts), and enumerates what the output covers: relationship dynamics, attractions, friction points, long-term outlook. The phrase 'between two charts' implicitly separates it from single-chart siblings like astroway_ai_interpret_natal, though no sibling is named.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many interpret_* siblings. The '[Group: AI Interpretations]' tag gives taxonomy context but not selection criteria; an agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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 readOnly=true, destructive=false, and importantly idempotent=false. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context via the cost line ('100 credits (Tier 4)'), which annotations do not convey. It stops short of noting that output is LLM-generated and non-deterministic (consistent with idempotentHint=false) or any latency/rate-limit expectation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the purpose, followed by compact metadata tags. Nothing is redundant or padded, though the group/cost tags are more structured metadata than prose.

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?

The tool takes a two-part input (natal birth data plus a required transitDate/time), and the description never surfaces that both halves are needed or that the transit date drives the interpretation window. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a Tier-4 credit-consuming interpretation tool the description would benefit from a note on the required transit date and non-determinism.

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 nested birth-data object, fields, and precision parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the rejected short-form names and the timezone/timezoneOffset rules. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('AI interpretation') and resource ('current/upcoming transits to a natal chart') plus the scope of output ('what each major transit means in life context'). It is clear on its own, but it does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as astroway_ai_interpret_natal or astroway_mcp_ai_explain_transit, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The '[Group: AI Interpretations]' tag offers weak categorization but no condition that tells an agent when to pick this over the natal, placement, or synastry interpreters. The cost tier is stated but is not usage guidance.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the cost signal (20 credits, Tier 2), which is genuine behavioral context an agent would not get from the schema. However it discloses nothing about computational behavior, resolution, or precision beyond that.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core concept front-loaded, followed by brief group and cost tags. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical definition and metadata lines make it slightly more list-like than prose would 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. What is missing is usage context and any clarification of the 11 under-documented parameters for a tool that takes 15, leaving an agent able to understand the operation but not confident about invocation choices.

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 33% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it does not compensate for the gap. Several parameters (cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsaId, name, city) are left undocumented in both places, and the reader must infer their roles from enum values alone.

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?

States a specific verb (Calculate) and a well-defined resource (antiscia and contra-antiscia), and even parenthetically glosses the concept as mirror points along the Cancer/Capricorn axis, plus their aspects to natal planets. This distinguishes it in substance from siblings like midpoints or arabic_parts, though it never names an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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 offers no when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no alternatives among the many sibling aspect tools. The [Group] and [Cost] tags are metadata, not guidance about selecting this tool over midpoints, parallel_aspects, or fixed_stars.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the credit cost (20, Tier 2) and that a built-in lot set is used when none is supplied, which is useful but modest additional context; it says nothing about formula syntax or error behavior for invalid custom formulas.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences plus compact group/cost metadata; nothing is padded. The metadata lines are useful but arguably belong in structured fields rather than the description body.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values. Stating what is returned (standard lots plus any custom formula) and the credit tier is sufficient for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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% and the schema itself richly documents body, timezone, houseSystem, fields and precision, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only implies that custom lots are optional via 'any custom formula', adding little beyond the schema's own 'built-in set is used when omitted' note.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Calculate Arabic parts (Lots) from a natal chart') and lists outputs (Fortune, Spirit, custom formulas). It is clear on its own, but never distinguishes itself from the many sibling points/aspects tools such as astroway_aspects_midpoints or astroway_aspects_antiscia.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools or what prerequisites exist beyond the generic '[Group: Aspects & Points]' tag and cost line. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and one sentence.

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 this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuinely useful context (bars show orb duration with exact dates; cost of 10 credits, Tier 1), but omits return format and any parameter-level 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?

Three focused sentences with the output shape front-loaded, followed by compact group/cost metadata. No padding, though the cost/group tags add bookkeeping rather than task-relevant content.

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?

The output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description does convey the produced artifact. But with 10 parameters at 20% coverage and a near-twin sibling, the description leaves meaningful gaps an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 only 20% (only 'fields' and 'precision' are documented), across 10 parameters including maxOrb, stepDays, planet1Ids/planet2Ids, aspectAngles, and visiblePlanetIds. The description explains none of these, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb+resource+output: it 'transforms aspect timelines into Gantt-style bars grouped by transit planet,' so the agent knows exactly what is produced. However, it does not distinguish this from the obvious sibling astroway_aspects_aspect_timeline, which the phrase 'aspect timelines' nearly collides with.

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?

'Useful for visual transit calendars' implies a usage context but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative. With a near-duplicate sibling (astroway_aspects_aspect_timeline) available, the description should route the agent but does not.

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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include enter/exact/leave dates, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about precision loss, orb defaults, sampling step behavior, or the 100-credit cost implications beyond the tier label.

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?

One tight sentence with the core computation front-loaded, followed by the required group and cost metadata. Nothing is wasted, though the single sentence is arguably too sparse for a 9-parameter tool.

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 complex 9-parameter tool with low schema coverage, the description is too thin: it omits how maxOrb, stepDays, aspectAngles and precision shape the returned timeline. The output schema covers return values, but the input side leaves an agent guessing at numeric ranges and defaults.

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 only 22% across 9 parameters, so the description carries much of the burden and fails to. maxOrb, stepDays, aspectAngles, precision and planet1Ids/planet2Ids are undocumented in both places; the description only vaguely references 'two specific planets' and a 'date range' without parameters actually named startDate/endDate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: calculating when two planets form an exact aspect over a date range. It is clear what the tool produces, but it does not differentiate itself from similarly named siblings such as astroway_calendar_aspects or astroway_aspects_aspect_bar, so an agent still has to infer which to pick.

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 explains what the tool computes but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not name any alternative tool. The date-range and two-planet framing weakly implies usage but provides no routing information relative to the many other aspect tools.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the credit cost (Tier 2, 20 credits) and notes the response includes star details and aspect type, but says nothing about the missing orb control it advertises, nor about output volume or limits.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core operation front-loaded, plus compact group and cost metadata. No filler, though the cost/group lines are boilerplate rather than definitional content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. But with 15 inputs at 33% schema description coverage and no mention of the required birth-data parameters or sidereal/house options, an agent must reconstruct the calling contract almost entirely from the schema.

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 only 33% across 15 parameters, so the description carries more burden than it does. It mentions 'specified orb' even though no orb parameter exists in the schema, and it never explains the required date/time/latitude/longitude quartet, zodiacType, houseSystem, or the ayanamsa options.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Calculate conjunctions between natal planets and fixed stars within a specified orb,' which an agent can distinguish from the sibling astroway_aspects_fixed_stars_catalog (a star listing) without opening either schema. However, no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. 'Within a specified orb' hints at a narrowing input, but the description never says when this tool should be preferred over other aspect tools such as astroway_aspects_parallel_aspects or the fixed-star catalog.

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, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered. The description adds useful context (static, no chart, 36-star default flagged, magnitude trimming) but doesn't cover pagination or response shape, which the output schema carries.

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?

Two compact sentences plus a group/cost tag; front-loaded with the key noun. The bracketed metadata lines are boilerplate but consistent with the tool family and mildly useful.

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 static reference lookup with an output schema, the description covers provenance, contents, the default flag, and a trimming filter. Nothing essential is missing; only the return-format note is left to the output schema.

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% and both parameters (fields, precision) are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions maxMagnitude, a query-string option, adding a little signal, but the structured fields do the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (fixed star catalogue) and its exact provenance (Swiss Ephemeris fixstars.cat), naming the fields returned. It is clearly distinguishable from the related astroway_aspects_fixed_stars, which computes star contacts rather than listing names.

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?

"Static lookup, no chart needed" gives clear context for when to reach for it, and the maxMagnitude trimming note scopes a common use case. It does not explicitly route the agent to a sibling for the computed-star case, so it falls 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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the credit cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and tool group, which is useful operational context, but says nothing about output shape, caching, or input sensitivity beyond that.

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?

One sentence of substance, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by clearly separated group/cost metadata. No filler, though the very brevity is also the source of the missing guidance.

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 computation tool with 15 parameters and an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers purpose and cost but omits input expectations and what distinguishes a 'power zone'. Adequate minimum but thin for the parameter surface.

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 only 33%, so the description would need to compensate, but it adds nothing about the 15 parameters. It never mentions that date/time/latitude/longitude are required, nor how ayanamsa/zodiacType or timezone affect Gauquelin sector results — a real gap since sector positions depend on exact time and location.

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?

States a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('Gauquelin sector positions (1–36) for all planets'), and adds the interpretive output ('whether each planet is in a power zone'). No close sibling overlaps (no other Gauquelin tool in the list), so differentiation is moot, but the description does not explicitly say how it differs from general aspects/point tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when a Gauquelin-sector analysis is preferable to other aspect/point tools, and no note of prerequisites such as needing a birth time. The agent is left to infer context entirely.

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 the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false), so the bar is lower. The description adds the cost/group metadata ('20 credits, Tier 2'), which is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about the response shape or limits.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the core action, followed by compact group and cost tags. Nothing is padded or redundant, though the optional-aspects clause is doing little work.

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 15-parameter tool with only 33% schema coverage, the description omits any guidance on inputs or configuration even though an output schema covers return values. An agent has no help navigating the many optional parameters or distinguishing this from the midpoint_trees sibling.

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 only 33% across 15 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate and does not. It never mentions the required date/time/latitude/longitude inputs or the many configuration knobs (ayanamsa, houseSystem, zodiacType, precision), leaving half the schema undocumented anywhere.

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: 'Calculate all planetary midpoints and their zodiac positions,' plus an optional mode ('midpoint aspects to natal points'). It is clear on its own but never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling astroway_aspects_midpoint_trees, so an agent cannot tell which one to reach for from the text alone.

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 only usage signal is 'Optionally include midpoint aspects to natal points,' which describes an internal option rather than when to choose this tool over astroway_aspects_midpoint_trees or other aspects tools. No preconditions, exclusions, or alternative routing are given.

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, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds billing behavior (20 credits, Tier 2), which is real context not present in structured fields, but says nothing about output shape, computational cost, or failure modes beyond that.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key noun phrase front-loaded, followed by two short metadata tags. Nothing is redundant, though the bracket tags are boilerplate shared across the tool family rather than tool-specific value.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the nested birth-data schema is exhaustively documented. What remains missing is the routing information an agent needs to pick this tool over the near-identical midpoint sibling, leaving the definition only minimally sufficient.

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 only 3 parameters, so the schema already carries the burden. The description mentions the orb and the focal-planet dimension, which maps loosely to the schema, but adds no format, default, or range detail beyond what is already documented.

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?

Names a specific verb (calculate) and a specific resource (Uranian midpoint trees / planetary pictures with symmetries), plus the scoping unit ('for each focal planet within a given orb'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling astroway_aspects_midpoints, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as astroway_aspects_midpoints or astroway_aspects_antiscia. The only selection signal is the credit tier, which tells the agent about cost but not about appropriateness.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds only the credit cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and the orb-scoped planet scope; it says nothing about response shape, errors, or limits beyond that.

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?

One front-loaded sentence stating the operation plus two compact metadata tags; no filler, no redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the required birth data plus orb are covered by the schema. What remains thin is usage guidance, but nothing an agent needs to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 nested birth-data and orb fields fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'within orb' loosely ties to body.orb but adds no format or default detail beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb (Calculate) and a precise resource (parallel and contra-parallel aspects by declination), and defines both terms, so an agent can distinguish it from ecliptic-aspect siblings like aspect_bar or midpoints. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, keeping it short of a 5.

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 scope (all planets, within orb) implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to sibling aspect tools. Usage must be inferred from the astronomical term 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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds two useful operational facts beyond the annotations: the cost tier (10 credits, Tier 1) and that one symbol is produced per longitude. It says nothing about output content or limits, hence a middle score.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the purpose, followed by short group and cost tags. Nothing is padded, though the bracketed metadata is boilerplate rather than explanatory content.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a simple per-longitude lookup the description plus structured fields give an agent enough to call it correctly; only usage context is thin.

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 67%; the required `longitudes` array has no schema description. The description compensates by specifying these are ecliptic longitudes and that a symbol is returned per element, which is the essential semantic for the undocumented parameter. It still omits units/range detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns the Sabian symbol (Dane Rudhyar) for each supplied ecliptic longitude. The resource is unique enough among the astroway_aspects_* siblings that an agent can identify it, but no sibling is named or contrasted, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g. other symbol/point lookups). The phrase 'for each given ecliptic longitude' only hints at the input shape, which is already visible in the schema.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral content beyond that: the response is localised by language, and longitude combined with trueSolarTime affects how the double-hour is cut (a genuine accuracy caveat). It stops short of disclosing cost/tier or error behavior, but the added context is substantive.

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?

Front-loaded with the aggregate's value proposition, then the enumeration of contents, then the practical solar-time tip — a sensible order. The single dense listing sentence is long and the text is visibly truncated mid-clause ('cut the double-hour fro…'), but there is little filler for a tool of this scope.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the payload contents and the main calculation caveat well. For an 11-parameter aggregate with low schema coverage, the remaining gap is the absence of any statement about when to choose this over its many granular BaZi siblings.

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 only 36% (roughly 4 of 11 params), so the description carries some of the burden and it partially does: it explains the longitude + trueSolarTime interaction and the language localisation. It says nothing about stageSchool (classical vs unified), includeFullTable, the compact-mode fields/precision pair, or the date/time formats, leaving several parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

Names a specific resource (the full BaZi four-pillar chart) and enumerates exactly what the aggregate returns — hidden stems, na yin, twelve stages, element balance, strength verdict, symbolic stars, interactions. Because the sibling set contains a granular tool for nearly each of those items (astroway_bazi_hidden_stems, astroway_bazi_na_yin, astroway_bazi_element_balance, etc.), the phrase 'everything ... in one call' is precisely the differentiator an agent needs.

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?

'in one call' implies this is the aggregate alternative to the granular BaZi siblings, and the closing sentence gives a conditional ('Pass longitude with trueSolarTime true to...'), which is configuration guidance rather than tool-selection guidance. It never explicitly states when to prefer this over astroway_bazi_four_pillars or the individual endpoints, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds operational context the annotations do not: the 10-credit Tier 1 cost and the BaZi group membership. It adds no pagination, caching, or dependency behavior, so it earns a moderate rather than high score.

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 definition is short, front-loaded with what the tool returns, and every element (including the group and credit tags) carries information. Slightly clipped on the phrasing of the second sentence but free of padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and the safety profile is in annotations. What is missing is workflow context: whether time is needed for a day-master-only reading, where this fits relative to four_pillars or ten_gods, and any preconditions on the date input. Adequate but with clear gaps for a 7-parameter chart 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 57%, and the two central parameters (date, required, and time) carry only regex patterns with no descriptions in either the schema or the description. The description explains nothing about how the date/time inputs drive the day master or how fields/precision/language behave, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific output: day stem element, yin/yang polarity, and canonical archetype description, and situates it in BaZi as the 'self' character. It is distinguishable from siblings like four_pillars or year_pillar, though it never names a contrasting sibling explicitly. Clear verb+resource, one notch below full sibling 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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no alternative tool is named, despite the dense BaZi sibling cluster (four_pillars, hidden_stems, ten_gods, strength). The reader can infer this is one sub-step of BaZi analysis, but nothing routes them to or away from it.

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, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the `balance` object opens branches and counts three ways, and the top-level elementCounts/dominantElement/missingElements are deprecated but keep their legacy (four-character) semantics until 2027-09. This is exactly the kind of output-contract disclosure that helps an agent interpret results.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the deprecation caveat is placed after it, which is the right ordering. But the text is dense with internal jargon ('opens the branches', 'stays at eight') and appears truncated mid-sentence at '2027-09…', which weakens the structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated, and the deprecation note usefully covers the output contract. What is missing for a tool of this complexity is any parameter guidance and any differentiation from the many sibling BaZi tools, leaving gaps the agent must guess around.

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?

Eleven parameters at only 36% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about any of them – not date/time, not timezone vs timezoneOffset, not fields compact mode. With coverage this low the description is expected to compensate for the undocumented parameters and does not.

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 opening sentence names a specific resource (element balance across the whole chart) and the following sentences specify the computation precisely: three counting methods over all eight characters. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as astroway_bazi_hidden_stems or astroway_bazi_strength, which also operate on the same chart, so the agent gets no routing signal.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The only conditional information is about deprecated output fields, which affects interpretation of the response, not tool selection.

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 cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is low, and the description adds genuinely useful domain behavior: the 60-jiazi anchor (1990-01-01 = Bing-Yin), the 23:00 local rollover for day/hour, and the exact Lichun/節 instants for year/month. The 10-credit cost is also disclosed. It does not mention timezone requirements or output shape, but annotations plus the output schema carry those.

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?

Two tightly written sentences front-load the resource and the key computational rules, followed by compact group/cost metadata. No filler; each clause carries 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the timing rules an agent needs to interpret results correctly; the only gap is that it doesn't note the date/timezone prerequisites for accurate hour-pillar output.

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 57%: timezone, fields, precision and timezoneOffset are documented in the schema, while date and language are bare. The description only adds semantics for `time` (hour-pillar computation), so it does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. 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 names a specific resource (all four pillars: year, month, day, hour) and implicitly differentiates from the single-pillar siblings (bazi_year_pillar, bazi_month_pillar, bazi_hour_pillar) by emphasizing 'All four.' It is clear what gets computed, though it never explicitly names an alternative tool to route against.

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?

'Pass `time` to compute the hour pillar' is a usage hint for one parameter, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus bazi_chart or the per-pillar siblings. The agent must infer that this is the full-chart option from the word 'All.'

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, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious output-semantics caveat ('On the four storage branches the middle role belongs to the stored element, not to the second in the list'), which is useful interpretive context. It does not cover return shape, auth, or limits, so it earns a middling score rather than a high one.

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?

Front-loaded with the core concept and reasonably short, but the middle sentence ('This is where most of a chart's elements live: a chart with no visible Water can still be soaked in it') is evocative illustration rather than functional guidance. The group/cost tags are compact and useful, but the descriptive rhetoric could be trimmed without loss.

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 an 11-parameter tool with only 36% schema coverage, the description omits everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: no param semantics, no usage context, no sibling routing. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the input and selection gaps are substantial.

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 only 36% (11 params, ~4 described), so the description must compensate and it adds zero parameter information. Required 'date', 'time', 'language', 'stageSchool', 'trueSolarTime', and 'includeFullTable' are unexplained in both schema and description. The 'role and weight' and 'storage branches' language refers to output, not inputs, so it does not close the gap.

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 defines the concept (the one-to-three stems each branch shelters, with role and weight) and clearly belongs to the Hidden Stems domain, distinguishing it from other BaZi siblings by topic. However, it never states the action a verb+resource framing would give ('returns the hidden stems for a chart built from the supplied date'), leaving the agent to infer that this computes data rather than explains it. Concept is specific; the operation is only implied.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite conditions, and no named alternatives among the many BaZi siblings (bazi_four_pillars, bazi_element_balance, etc.). Nothing tells the agent when hidden-stem data is the right call versus, say, the element balance tool that uses the same underlying concept.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuinely useful domain behavior: the day opens at the Zi hour at 23:00 local time, which materially affects which hour pillar is returned and is not derivable from the annotations or schema. Cost tier is also disclosed. It stops short of stating the input source (birth date/time/location) or output shape, but the output schema covers the latter.

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?

Front-loaded and tight: the operative sentence comes first and the Group/Cost tags are compact metadata rather than filler. The untranslated 五鼠遁 term is slightly opaque for a non-specialist but is followed by an English gloss, so no meaning is lost.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a specialized BaZi sub-tool buried among hundreds of siblings, however, the definition omits the minimal context an agent needs to select it: what the Hour pillar represents, how it differs from the sibling pillar tools, and what inputs it draws on. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

With 7 parameters and 57% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the tricky ones (timezone, timezoneOffset, precision, fields). The description adds no parameter-level detail and never clarifies the required date/time formats (patterns only) or the language field, which the schema leaves bare. The mention of 23:00 'local time' loosely signals the timezone parameter's relevance, so it is not a total wash, but it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource: it derives the Hour pillar using the 五鼠遁 day-stem-to-hour-stem table, and clarifies the Zi-hour day boundary. That is more precise than a tautology. It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely-named siblings like astroway_bazi_four_pillars, astroway_bazi_year_pillar or astroway_bazi_chart, so the agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus the other BaZi pillar tools or the aggregate bazi_four_pillars/bazi_chart. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are named. The Group and Cost tags give taxonomy and price but not usage conditions.

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, idempotentHint, non-destructive and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses the report contents (pillar pairs plus resulting element) and the credit cost (Tier 1, 10 credits), which annotations do not carry. It says nothing about determinism against the input, error behaviour, or how a chart with no interactions is represented.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the most distinctive content (the interaction types) before the secondary details. Nothing is redundant, though the enumeration is long and the appended group/cost tags are bracketed boilerplate rather than prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not spell out return values, and it covers the computed content well. However, for an 11-parameter chart tool with patchy schema documentation, the absence of any statement about required birth data, the stageSchool choice between classical and unified, or the includeFullTable toggle leaves the agent under-informed about how to call it.

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?

With 11 parameters and only 36% schema description coverage, the description should carry meaning for the undocumented inputs, but it mentions none of them — not date, time, timezone, trueSolarTime, stageSchool, includeFullTable, fields, precision or language. The schema leaves several of these bare, so the gap is real rather than theoretical.

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 names a concrete resource — the set of stem/branch interactions (combinations, harmonies, trines, clashes, harms, punishments) found in a BaZi chart — and even says what is reported alongside each one (pillars involved, produced element). That is far more specific than the title alone. It stops short of differentiating itself from near neighbours such as astroway_bazi_four_pillars or astroway_bazi_chart, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (a birth date/time is required by the schema but never mentioned), and no routing to or away from alternative BaZi tools. The only framing is the group/cost tag, which is metadata rather than usage guidance.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds conceptual output context (that the pipeline yields the twelve-stage cycle, and includeFullTable returns a ten-by-twelve reference table), but says nothing about how the two stageSchool modes differ in result or what the default is; adequate, not rich.

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?

Three tight sentences that lead with the concept and then the two option hints. The first sentence is a little convoluted, but there is no padding and the metadata tags are compact.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains thin is the conceptual/usage framing for a BaZi tool and the unaddressed parameters; it is callable but not fully self-explanatory.

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 only 36% across 11 params, so the description must compensate. It does explain includeFullTable (returns the ten-by-twelve reference table) and stageSchool (classical yin-reverse rule vs unified), which is real added value, but leaves date, time, trueSolarTime, longitude and language entirely unaddressed in both schema and description.

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 conveys the concept being computed – a stem read against each branch as a life cycle (the twelve life stages, Chang Sheng through Jue) via the day master. However, it never states a verb+resource plainly and gives no differentiation from dense BaZi siblings such as bazi_day_master or bazi_strength, so an agent cannot cleanly distinguish this tool's output from adjacent ones without domain knowledge.

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 only guidance is parameter-level (includeFullTable, stageSchool) rather than situational. There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus the many other BaZi tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-annotation context: a fixed 10-credit (Tier 1) cost and the Ziping-canon direction method. It says nothing about how many pillars return, timezone handling, or any auth/rate constraints, so it stays at the baseline-plus level.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core concept and direction logic front-loaded, followed by clearly tagged Group/Cost metadata. No filler, though the second sentence is borderline trivia for an agent deciding whether to call the tool.

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?

The existence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values, and cost is disclosed. However, for a 9-parameter tool with 44% schema coverage and no usage guidance, the description leaves gaps an agent must fill via the schema and sibling list.

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?

With 9 parameters and only 44% schema description coverage, the description should carry more of the load. It touches only gender (as a direction input) and says nothing about count, fields, precision, time, timezone, or timezoneOffset, so callers must read the schema for the majority of inputs.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: the 10-year luck pillar sequence (Da Yun), plus the direction rule (gender + year-stem polarity per Ziping canon). An agent can tell it computes a BaZi period sequence rather than a single pillar. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like astroway_bazi_year_pillar_decade or astroway_bazi_yearly, which prevents a 5.

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 explains how the direction is derived, not when to call this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tools such as astroway_bazi_yearly or astroway_bazi_year_pillar_decade, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond them: the month branch is resolved via mid-month jieqi (which determines which month boundary is used) and the cost is 10 credits (Tier 1). It does not contradict the 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?

Two tight sentences front-load the method and scope, followed by compact structured metadata (group, cost). No filler or repetition; every line carries 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. However, for an 8-parameter tool with 3 required inputs and 25% schema coverage, the description leaves the date/time/timezone inputs and their interaction underspecified, which is a real gap 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 only 25% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the burden and fails to compensate. Only 'a specific calendar month' loosely gestures at targetMonth; natalDate, natalTime, targetYear, natalTzOffset, and language are undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving timezone and year/month coupling unclear.

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 names a specific analytical method (Sheng-Ke + branch-clash) and its scope (a single calendar month), and explicitly frames it as the monthly counterpart to the yearly analysis. It differentiates scope from the sibling astroway_bazi_yearly by implication rather than naming the tool, so it is clear but not maximally sibling-aware.

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?

Framing it as 'same as yearly but applied to a specific calendar month' implicitly tells the agent when to reach for this rather than the yearly tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no mention of the adjacent astroway_bazi_month_pillar (natal month pillar), which could easily be confused with this forecast 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, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the solar-term boundary semantics and the cost/group metadata, which is useful context, but says nothing about how missing time or timezone inputs affect the computed pillar.

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?

A single front-loaded clause carries the core meaning with no filler; the group and cost tags are compact metadata. It is terse rather than padded, though it verges on under-specification.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but for a 7-parameter tool with partial schema coverage and no usage context, the description leaves the agent without enough to select it confidently among dozens of BaZi siblings.

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 57% and the description contributes zero parameter meaning. The undocumented parameters (date, time, language) include the required one, so the description does not compensate for the gap even though the date/time patterns are somewhat self-explanatory.

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 names the specific resource (month stem + branch) and its derivation rule (solar-term boundaries), which is a real distinguishing detail versus a calendar-month calculation. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many sibling pillar tools (year_pillar, hour_pillar, four_pillars), which share the same phrasing pattern.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives such as astroway_bazi_four_pillars or astroway_bazi_monthly, and no prerequisite information. 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds genuine domain context (the two-pillar collapse, the year-pillar reading) but says nothing about the credit cost beyond the header note, and nothing about output shape.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the definition and then the disambiguation, plus a compact metadata footer for group and cost. No wasted text, though the cost/group lines are boilerplate rather than value.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the concept is well-defined. But for an 11-parameter tool with low schema coverage and a domain-specific concept, the description leaves too much about input handling and the year-vs-other-pillar choice unstated.

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?

With 11 parameters at only 36% schema description coverage, the description must carry more of the load than it does. It adds nothing about date, time, timezone, or the fields/precision compact-mode behavior, yet the nà yīn result depends critically on how the birth data is supplied.

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?

States a specific concept ('the sound-element of each pillar') and pre-empts the most likely confusion by clarifying what it is NOT ('it is not the day master'), directly differentiating it from the sibling astroway_bazi_day_master. The sixty-jiazi-to-thirty-names mechanism makes the resource unambiguous.

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 implicitly signals it answers the popular 'what is your element' question, but it never states when to call this vs. alternatives like bazi_day_master or bazi_element_balance. It distinguishes the concept but not the usage decision.

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, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine methodological context beyond the annotations: the month is counted like any other branch, the three criteria are reported unweighted, and the cut points are this API's own convention. That limitation disclosure is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs, though auth/rate-limit details are absent (credit cost is given in the metadata block).

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?

Two sentences are front-loaded with the core concept, and the caveat sentence names both limits economically. The prose is dense jargon ("support-and-suppress", "weighted hidden-stem count") which reduces immediate readability, but nothing is wasted or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. What remains missing is any positioning against the large BaZi sibling set and any description of the many input parameters, which a tool with 11 options arguably needs. The methodology and cut-point caveats partially fill the gap, making this minimally adequate.

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?

With 11 parameters and only 36% schema description coverage, the description is expected to compensate, but it mentions no input parameters at all. Nothing is said about date/time handling, timezone vs timezoneOffset, stageSchool, precision, fields or includeFullTable, so the coverage gap is unaddressed.

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 names a specific computation: the day-master support-and-suppress reading over the weighted hidden-stem count, with the three classical criteria (season, root, allies) and the favourable elements. This is a concrete verb-plus-resource statement rather than a tautology. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as astroway_bazi_day_master, astroway_bazi_hidden_stems or astroway_bazi_element_balance, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The description explains what is computed but not the conditions under which an agent should pick this over the many adjacent BaZi endpoints (e.g. day_master, element_balance). No prerequisites or sequencing are stated.

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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the dual-pillar computation, the disagreement between transmissions, and the specific handling rule that both placements ship and cross-reference each other. It also surfaces a cost tier (10 credits).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the star names and followed by the key methodological caveat, plus compact group/cost metadata. It is reasonably tight, though the second sentence about cross-naming placements is slightly dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for an 11-parameter tool at 36% schema coverage, the description leaves a significant parameter gap and gives no usage routing, making it only adequate rather than 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 only 36% across 11 parameters, so the schema cannot carry the load and the description must compensate. It instead says nothing about date/time format, timezone, precision, fields, stageSchool, trueSolarTime, or includeFullTable, leaving most parameters undocumented in both places.

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 names the specific resource concretely (Peach Blossom, Travelling Horse, Canopy, Heavenly Nobleman, Blade and Void) and states it is 'computed from BOTH the year and the day reference pillar,' so an agent knows this yields Shen Sha symbolic stars. It is distinguishable from BaZi siblings by the star names, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with neighbors like astroway_bazi_four_pillars or astroway_bazi_ten_gods.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus another BaZi tool, and no prerequisites or input context beyond the required date. The only guidance is methodological (why both pillars are used), which explains the output rather than the usage decision.

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 this a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds operational context beyond annotations only via the '[Cost: 10 credits (Tier 1)]' and group tags; it says nothing about the computation performed, determinism relative to input, or limits. Adequate but thin given annotations carry the behavioral burden.

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?

Front-loaded with the core statement, followed by a compact enumeration and two bracketed metadata tags. Efficient and free of filler, though the enumeration of ten terms is dense and the metadata tags sit outside the prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. But the description omits the essential framing that this is a birth-chart-derived computation requiring a date/time, and gives no routing against the numerous BaZi siblings - a real gap for a 7-parameter tool in a dense toolset.

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 57%, and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all - it never mentions date, time, timezone, fields, or precision. With over half the parameters documented only in the schema and the remainder undocumented anywhere, the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific resource and operation ('Ten Gods classification per day master') and enumerates the ten gods with their category labels (peer, output, wealth, officer, resource), which tells an agent what the output represents. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling BaZi tools (day_master, four_pillars, hidden_stems) that an agent might otherwise reach for.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that a birth date is needed), and no mention of any alternative sibling. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and group tag.

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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful semantic content (what relations are computed) and a cost tag (10 credits, Tier 1), but says nothing about auth, limits, or how natal time/zone defaults affect results. Adequate but not rich beyond the 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?

Two tight sentences with the operation front-loaded before the return contents, plus compact group/cost metadata. No padding or repetition, though the enumerated return fields partly duplicate what the output schema already provides.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the safety profile is carried by annotations. However, for a 7-parameter tool with low schema coverage, the missing parameter documentation and absence of any sibling routing leave real gaps an agent must guess around.

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 only 29% (fields and precision only), so the description must compensate — and it does not. It never mentions natalDate, targetYear, natalTime, natalTzOffset, or language, leaving the two required parameters and the timezone input undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific operation (compares target year pillar against natal day master and natal year branch) and enumerates the analytical outputs (Sheng-Ke element-flow relation, 六冲 branch clashes, 三合 trine support). Clear verb+resource, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as astroway_bazi_year_pillar, astroway_bazi_year_pillar_decade, or astroway_bazi_monthly, so an agent cannot route between them from the text alone.

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?

No when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative despite a dense BaZi sibling cluster. The only scoping hint is implicit in the phrase 'target year pillar', which an agent must infer means an annual forecast use case.

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, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context beyond that: the group (BaZi Four Pillars) and the cost (10 credits, Tier 1). It does not disclose what input the pillar is computed from or any limits.

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?

It is a single front-loaded fragment with no filler, and the cost/group tags are compact. But it is under-specified rather than concise — the terse form leaves the core routing question unanswered.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still, for a tool sitting in a cluster of four ambiguous pillar siblings, the description omits both sibling disambiguation and parameter meaning, which is the minimum needed to invoke it correctly.

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 57%, and the description adds nothing about any of the 7 parameters. Notably the required `date` parameter has only a regex pattern in the schema and no description anywhere, so the agent must guess whether it is a birth date, a reference year, or a calendar date — the one thing this tool's semantics hinge on.

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 names the resource contents precisely (year stem, branch, animal, element, yin/yang), so an agent knows what data comes back. However, it is a noun fragment with no verb and no differentiation from the many near-identical sibling pillars (astroway_bazi_month_pillar, astroway_bazi_hour_pillar, astroway_bazi_four_pillars, astroway_bazi_day_master). The naming pattern makes the distinction inferable, but the description itself does not make it.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing states when to call this instead of astroway_bazi_four_pillars, astroway_bazi_chart, or astroway_bazi_yearly, all of which overlap heavily. No prerequisites, no mention that a birth date is required.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful cost/group metadata (10 credits, Tier 1, BaZi group), but says nothing about output volume, whether language affects the pillar labels, or how the decade window is bounded.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and waste-free; the bracketed group/cost tags are compact and machine-scannable. Slightly more verbose than a single clean sentence, but nothing is extraneous.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations handle safety. However, for a tool with three comparably named BaZi siblings and a required year parameter, the description is thin on routing and on what the decade output represents, leaving an agent to infer selection.

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 50%: 'fields' and 'precision' are well documented in the schema, while 'startYear' and 'language' are undocumented. The description's 'from a given starting year' loosely maps to startYear but adds no format or edge-case detail (e.g., whether the 10 pillars begin at that year inclusive). Baseline 3 fits given the schema carries the parameter detail.

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?

States a specific resource and cardinality: '10 consecutive year pillars from a given starting year.' An agent can distinguish it from the singular astroway_bazi_year_pillar by the '10 consecutive'/decade framing. It stops short of naming the sibling alternative explicitly, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives among the many BaZi siblings (year_pillar, yearly, luck_pillars, monthly). The '10 consecutive' scope implies a range flavor, but nothing tells the agent when this is preferred over the single-year or yearly tools.

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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a cost note (10 credits, Tier 1) and a group tag; it discloses nothing about how the persona is derived, rate limits, or what the response looks like beyond what annotations and the output schema already 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?

One tight sentence plus metadata tags; nothing is padded and the core concept is front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a 15-parameter tool.

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 15 parameters at 33% schema coverage, a complex business-astrology computation, and no usage guidance, the description leaves the agent under-informed. An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but the invocation-side context is largely missing.

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 only 33% across 15 parameters (date, time, latitude, longitude, name, city, zodiacType, houseSystem, etc. are undocumented), and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 names a specific output (a 'Native customer persona' tied to the founder's sun-sign brand voice), so the agent understands what the tool produces. However, it does not state a clear verb (compute/generate profile) and gives no differentiation from the many other business_* siblings such as astroway_business_founder_personality or astroway_business_leadership_style.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the founder chart data it presumably derives from. The sibling list is dense with similar business-persona tools, so the absence of any routing hint is a real gap.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context in the cost line (10 credits, Tier 1) and the group tag, but says nothing about what the suitability assessment contains or how it is derived.

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?

Two short lines with the purpose front-loaded and the cost/group metadata clearly delimited. Nothing is padded or redundant, though the brevity contributes to the specification gaps noted elsewhere.

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 15-parameter tool the definition is thin: it never explains the required date/time/geo inputs, never resolves the phantom 'venture type' input, and offers no routing guidance against near-identical business/muhurta siblings. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the input-side gaps remain substantial.

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?

With 15 parameters and only ~33% schema description coverage, the description needs to carry meaning for the undocumented inputs (date, time, latitude, longitude, city, name, cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsaId). Instead it adds no parameter detail at all, and its only parameter-like reference ('venture type') has no corresponding field, which actively misleads.

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 phrase 'Suitability of a proposed launch date for the venture type' identifies the resource (a launch date) and the judgment being made, but it is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource statement, and 'the venture type' refers to an input that does not exist anywhere in the schema. It also does not distinguish this from siblings such as astroway_vedic_muhurat_business_start or astroway_business_expansion_timing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many adjacent electional/muhurta tools in the sibling list. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no named alternative — the agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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 establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-annotation context — the tool is deliberately non-specific and the cost is 10 credits (Tier 1) — but says nothing about return contents or limitations beyond the transits caveat.

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 prose is two efficient clauses with the key caveat front-loaded, and the [Group]/[Cost] metadata is structured. It is arguably too terse for a 15-parameter chart tool, but there is no wasted language.

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 complex 15-parameter astrology computation tool, this description is far too thin — it explains neither the inputs it requires nor what the guidance output contains. The deferral to /transits is the only substantive content, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 15 parameters with only 33% schema description coverage, and the description adds zero parameter guidance. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate for the undocumented fields (e.g. zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram), and it does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.