AstroWay Forecasting

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations lack: the group membership (Cosmobiology / Hamburg School) and the cost of 10 credits (Tier 1), which matters for a paid call. It still says nothing about what the render actually returns or its computation traits.

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 very short and front-loaded, and the bracketed group/cost lines do earn their place by conveying billing and taxonomy. However the substance is so thin that the brevity reads as under-specification rather than tight writing.

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 16-parameter tool with 31% schema coverage, the description is far too sparse. It omits any explanation of the resource itself, offers no sibling routing, and leaves most parameters undocumented; only the presence of an output schema spares it a lower score on return values.

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 31% across 16 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate and does not. Undocumented or thinly-documented parameters such as fields, precision, cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem and withTnp receive no explanation in the description text.

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 'Ebertin cosmogram render data' essentially restates the tool name and title (Cosmogram / 90° Render Data) without explaining what a cosmogram is or what output it produces. It offers no differentiation from close siblings like astroway_cosmobiology_dial_90, midpoint_pictures, or witte_formulas, all of which operate in the same 90° Hamburg School space.

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-routing guidance anywhere in the description. An agent has no basis for choosing this over the many other cosmobiology render tools beyond the bare 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context — the cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the Cosmobiology/Hamburg School grouping — but says nothing about output shape or computation specifics beyond the modulus 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 sentence plus two bracketed metadata tags — no padding and the core statement is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 16-parameter tool sitting among roughly ten cosmobiology siblings, the description omits what distinguishes the 90° dial, which parameters matter, and how results relate to the cosmogram tool. The output schema covers return values, but the selection and invocation context an agent needs is largely absent.

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 16 parameters and only 31% schema description coverage, several inputs (houseSystem codes, zodiacType, cosmogram, withTnp, name, city) are undocumented in both places. The description contributes zero parameter meaning — it never mentions date, time, coordinates, ayanamsa, or any of the dial-specific flags, 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?

The phrase 'All chart points in 90° cardinal modulus' names the resource (chart points) and the transformation (90° modulus), which is meaningful to a domain user. However, it supplies no verb and no differentiation from close siblings like astroway_cosmobiology_cosmogram, astroway_cosmobiology_eight_harmonic_aspects, or astroway_cosmobiology_midpoint_pictures, so an agent cannot tell which cosmobiology output this produces.

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 choose the 90° dial over the cosmogram, midpoint pictures, or sensitive points siblings, and no statement of prerequisites or exclusions. The only framing is the group tag, which categorizes but does not instruct.

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 closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context — the cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the Cosmobiology/Hamburg School grouping — but says nothing about output shape or behavioral 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?

The text is tightly front-loaded: the substantive content (the angles) leads, followed by two compact bracketed tags. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than true economy.

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 16-parameter computation tool with low schema coverage, the description is far too thin. The output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the description still omits what the grid represents, how to interpret the angles, and any parameter guidance for a complex chart-calculation 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?

With 16 parameters and only 31% schema description coverage, the description carries a heavy compensation burden but adds nothing about parameters — it only lists aspect angles. Undocumented params such as city, date, name, withTnp, cosmogram, zodiacType and houseSystem are left entirely to the bare schema, so this falls below the baseline.

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 lists the specific aspect angles (22.5°/45°/67.5°/90°/135°), which conveys the domain content, but supplies no verb and never states that it computes an aspect grid. It also does nothing to distinguish this from sibling cosmobiology tools like dial_90 or midpoint_pictures, so an agent must infer the operation.

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 alternative tools. The [Group] and [Cost] tags give classification and pricing context but no indication of when this tool should be selected over the many sibling cosmobiology 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact not in the annotations — a 10-credit (Tier 1) cost — but says nothing about response shape, latency or pagination. With annotations carrying the main burden, a 3 is fair.

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 short, but shortness here is under-specification rather than conciseness: two bracketed metadata fragments and a noun phrase that never forms a sentence about the operation. Nothing is wasted, but almost nothing is said.

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 16-parameter computation with an output schema and rich annotations, the description omits what the result contains (subdivisions of what, in what unit), required inputs, and how it relates to the other cosmobiology tools. An output schema removes the need to describe return values, but the remaining 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 31% across 16 parameters, and the description mentions no parameter at all. Fields such as zodiacType, houseSystem, withTnp, cosmogram, name, city and precision are undocumented in the prose and mostly bare in the schema, so the description does nothing 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?

The fragment 'Lefeldt-Brummund 22.5° subdivisions' names a specific astrological technique, which is more than a tautology, but supplies no verb (compute/return a chart) and gives no basis for telling it apart from siblings such as cosmobiology_dial_90, cosmobiology_cosmogram or cosmobiology_witte_formulas. An agent without prior domain knowledge cannot tell what operation it performs.

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 selection aid is the '[Group: Cosmobiology / Hamburg School]' tag, which at best locates the tool in a family among 45 siblings. There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for a related need.

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 fully covered. The description adds the cost tier (10 credits) and hints at output shape ("sentence form"), which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or output size. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is fair.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short and front-loaded, with no filler, but it is arguably under-specified rather than concise given the complexity of the tool. The bracketed Group/Cost tags are structured metadata 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?

For a 16-parameter, domain-heavy cosmobiology tool, a single fragment is inadequate. Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage or orient the agent among the numerous sibling 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?

The tool has 16 parameters with only 31% schema description coverage, so the description carries a heavy compensation burden — and it supplies zero parameter information. It does not explain date/time/lat/long, the sidereal options, houseSystem, precision, or fields, 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?

The description names a domain-specific output construct ("A=B/C structures with sentence form"), which a cosmobiology practitioner would recognize as midpoint-picture notation rendered as sentences. However, it never states a verb or explicitly says this generates/computes a midpoint picture, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like transit_midpoints, sensitive_points, or witte_formulas. It is specific but opaque to a general agent.

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 any alternative sibling tool. The agent is left to infer from the name alone whether this is the right tool versus the many other cosmobiology tools listed.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the call costs 10 credits (Tier 1), which is useful billing context, but says nothing about calculation behavior, authentication, or output characteristics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short but under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It uses fragments and metadata tags while omitting core explanatory content, so its few words do not earn their place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 16 parameters, low schema coverage, and an output schema, the description omits what the tool computes, how to invoke it correctly, and which inputs matter. It is not complete enough for an agent to use reliably.

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 31% across 16 parameters, so the description must compensate for many undocumented fields such as date, time, latitude, longitude, and chart options. It adds no parameter meaning at all, not even clarifying required birth data or optional settings.

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?

"Tree per personal point" restates the tool name and title without explaining what a personal point tree is, what it returns, or how it differs from siblings such as midpoint_pictures or sensitive_points. The only added content is group and cost metadata, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish this tool's actual purpose.

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, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative tools are provided. The group tag and cost line give billing context but do not guide selection among the many cosmobiology siblings.

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 fully covered by structured data. The description's one genuine addition is billing context: "Cost: 10 credits (Tier 1)", which tells the agent this call has a real cost — useful, though nothing is said about computation behavior or failure modes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and the metadata tags are cleanly structured and front-loaded, so there is no wasted prose. However, its brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy — the single content sentence carries almost no 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. But for a 16-parameter tool in a dense sibling cluster, the description leaves the agent unable to judge what result to expect or why to choose this tool over its cosmobiology neighbours.

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 31% across 16 parameters (city, name, withTnp, cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem and others undocumented), and the description mentions no parameter at all. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it contributes zero 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?

The phrase "Ebertin's personal points midpoint hits" names a technique but never states in plain terms what the tool computes or returns. It neither distinguishes itself from sibling cosmobiology tools such as midpoint_pictures or personal_point_tree, nor supplies a verb+resource an agent can act on. The title 'Sensitive Points' is simply restated in jargon.

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 named anywhere in the description, despite nine sibling cosmobiology tools covering overlapping techniques. Only the bracketed group tag hints at the domain, which 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added behavioral fact is the cost (10 credits, Tier 1), which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about what the response contains or how the 90° dial projection is applied.

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 bracket lines plus one sentence; the operative clause is front-loaded and there is no filler. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing is 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?

For a 20-parameter, 5-required-parameter tool this is too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description omits when to use it, how natal vs transit data are supplied, and what the many optional flags do.

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?

Twenty parameters with only 25% schema description coverage, and the description contributes zero parameter information. Core required inputs (date, time, latitude, longitude, targetDate) have no descriptions in either place, and flags like cosmogram, converse, withTnp, and the 25-value houseSystem enum are unexplained.

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: transits contacting natal midpoints within the 90° dial, which is a recognizable cosmobiological operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as astroway_cosmobiology_midpoint_pictures or astroway_cosmobiology_dial_90, so an agent must infer the boundary from names 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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. Nothing tells the agent when this tool is preferable to dial_90, midpoint_pictures, or prognostics_transits.

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 behavior is covered. The description adds the credit cost and tier, which is genuinely useful planning context, but discloses nothing about the operation itself (e.g., that a full birth/event moment is required).

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 text is short and front-loads the resource, with metadata cleanly bracketed at the end. But the brevity is under-specification rather than economy: the one substantive sentence carries almost no operational 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, a 15-parameter, 4-required charting tool in a dense cosmobiology family needs more than a body count; there is no indication of what distinguishes this result from the other Hamburg School endpoints an agent could 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?

With 15 parameters and only 33% schema description coverage, the description bears responsibility for compensating, and it says nothing about any parameter. It does not clarify required date/time/lat/long inputs, the timezone-vs-timezoneOffset precedence, or which knobs affect TNP output versus general chart output.

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 — the 8 Hamburg trans-Neptunian bodies — which does spell out the 'TNP' acronym in the title and give a count. However, it never states the action (compute a chart's positions? list the bodies?) and gives no basis for choosing it over sibling cosmobiology tools like witte_formulas, dial_90, or midpoint_pictures.

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 [Group] and [Cost] tags provide context about billing and family, but nothing tells an agent which input conditions or astrological question should route here rather than to another Hamburg School 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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a group tag and a cost tier (10 credits), which is mildly useful, but says nothing about what the computed output contains or any limits of the technique.

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 short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness: the formula fragment is not self-explanatory and no sentence earns its place by conveying actionable 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?

For a 16-parameter, complex cosmobiology computation with an output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot determine inputs, defaults, or the nature of the result from 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 16 parameters and only 31% schema description coverage, the description is expected to compensate for the documentation gap, and it contributes nothing — no mention of date/time/latitude/longitude requirements, ayanamsa vs ayanamsaId, timezone handling, compact-mode fields, or cosmogram/TNP flags.

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 reduces to the tool's title plus a formula fragment ('Witte planetary pictures A+B−C=D') with no verb stating what the tool actually produces (e.g., computes/returns planetary picture contacts for a chart). It is close to a restatement of the name rather than a statement of function, and it does nothing to separate it from siblings like midpoint_pictures or personal_point_tree.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of the many close alternatives in the Cosmobiology group. An agent has no basis to choose this over astroway_cosmobiology_midpoint_pictures or personal_point_tree.

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 bar is low; the description still adds real value by clarifying that endpoints are NOT invoked and that results are cached with a 5-minute TTL. It also discloses the return shape (total + per-endpoint breakdown with tier annotations), which is meaningful since no output schema exists.

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, front-loaded with the core capability and the non-invocation guarantee, followed by workflow guidance and the cache note. Nothing is wasted.

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 having no output schema, the description explains the return value, and the invocation-free and cache behaviors are covered. For a one-parameter, read-only estimator this is fully 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% and the single 'endpoints' parameter is fully documented with examples and the leading-slash rule in the schema. The description only restates 'one or more endpoints' without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so 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 verb and resource ('Estimate the credit cost of one or more endpoints') and immediately pins the scope with 'WITHOUT invoking them', which no sibling tool does. An agent can distinguish this from the many invocation/report siblings at a glance.

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?

Gives explicit workflow guidance: 'estimate first, ask user confirmation, then invoke' for multi-step planning. This is clear when-to-use context, though it names no alternative tool or when-not-to-use condition.

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, closed-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the remaining burden is light. The description adds the useful cost tier and domain grouping, but does not disclose anything about computation requirements, authentication, or output behavior beyond what the annotations and 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?

The operative sentence is extremely short and front-loaded, and the group/cost tags are compact. It is arguably too sparse for a complex tool, but as written it contains no wasted 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?

For a tool with 15 input parameters, low schema description coverage, and many sibling evolutionary-astrology tools, the description is under-specified. The output schema and annotations cover return shape and safety, but usage differentiation and input semantics remain 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, and the description contributes no parameter-level meaning at all. It does not clarify the required date, time, latitude, longitude inputs or any optional calculation settings, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the partially documented 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?

The description names the exact deliverable: full North Node/South Node detail with rulers and conjuncts. That is specific enough to distinguish it from most evolutionary astrology siblings, which cover Pluto condition, skipped steps, or soul types, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 [Group: Evolutionary Astrology] tag implies a broad domain, but there is no statement of when to choose this tool over sibling evolutionary tools or other chart-calculation endpoints. It also gives no prerequisites beyond the cost signal.

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 covered. The description adds the credit cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and its group, which is genuinely useful behavioral context for an agent deciding whether to invoke. It does not add anything about output shape, but annotations lower the bar.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is terse and front-loads the core meaning before the metadata tags. Every line carries some signal, though the cryptic 'JWG' token is wasted space for a general agent. Appropriate size for the content provided.

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 natal chart tool with a required date/time/coordinates core, the description gives the agent nothing about required inputs or the computation context. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the input-side incompleteness leaves 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?

15 parameters with only 33% schema description coverage, and the description supplies nothing about any parameter. Several key inputs (date, time, latitude, longitude, zodiacType, houseSystem) are undocumented in both places. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a complex 15-param tool.

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 tool's outputs (Pluto sign, house, ruler, hard aspects) which is more specific than the title alone and helps distinguish it from evolutionary siblings like nodal_axis_detail or skipped_steps. However, there is no verb describing the operation, and the cryptic 'JWG' prefix (Jeffrey Wolf Green) is opaque to an agent without domain expertise. Purpose is inferable but not stated cleanly.

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 routing to alternatives. The [Group: Evolutionary Astrology] tag loosely places it in a family but does not say when to pick this Pluto tool over the several other evolutionary tools. No usage context is provided.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no auth requirements, rate limits, or side-effect details — and 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?

The description is brief, but it is under-specified rather than concise. One cryptic astrological sentence plus group/cost metadata is not an appropriately sized operational description for a 15-parameter analytic 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, the description fails to explain what the tool computes, when to use it, or how it differs from close siblings, leaving a significant contextual gap for a specialized evolutionary astrology 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?

The tool has 15 parameters with only 33% schema description coverage, and required parameters like date, time, latitude, and longitude are undocumented. The description is silent on every parameter, adding no meaning beyond the incomplete schema and failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a domain rule — planets squaring the nodal axis equal unfinished karma — which hints that the tool computes skipped steps. However, it lacks an explicit verb or resource, and it does not distinguish this tool from sibling evolutionary astrology tools such as nodal_axis_detail.

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, alternatives, or prerequisites are provided. The description gives an astrological aphorism but does not help an agent choose this tool over the many other evolutionary astrology siblings.

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, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and group, which is useful operational context, but says nothing about computation or output behavior 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?

The description is two very short lines, front-loading the technique name and then providing group and cost metadata. It is appropriately sized with 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?

For a complex astrological calculation with 15 parameters and 4 required inputs, the description is minimal. An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, but the description lacks usage context, prerequisites, or routing guidance relative to evolutionary 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 low (33%) across 15 parameters, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. Some parameters like timezone and fields have schema descriptions, but the description does not compensate for the many undocumented required and optional 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?

The description names the specific astrological technique ('JWG's 4-type by Pluto house quadrant') and the tool title 'Soul Types' signals the output. This distinguishes it from siblings like pluto_natal_condition, but the description lacks an explicit verb and does not directly compare to alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other evolutionary astrology tools. It only lists the group and cost. An agent must infer usage from the name and technique 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?

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a cost tier and group label, not meaningful behavioral context such as what the output represents, limitations, or how the past-life method is applied. Cost is useful operationally but does not explain tool behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The text is very short and front-loads the method reference, with no filler sentences. However, it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, and the bracketed tags read more like metadata than helpful structure for an agent.

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 tool with 15 input parameters, 4 required fields, and low schema description coverage, the description is drastically incomplete. It provides no explanation of inputs, output, usage context, or how this differs from sibling tools, leaving the agent with almost nothing beyond the annotations and title.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is only 33%, and the description provides no parameter guidance whatsoever. Required inputs like date, time, latitude, and longitude are undocumented in the description, and optional parameters such as zodiacType, houseSystem, and cosmogram are not explained. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific astrological technique (Forrest 2008 past-life method), which gives some sense of the domain. However, it never states what the tool actually computes or returns, and it does not distinguish this from sibling evolutionary astrology tools such as skipped steps or nodal axis detail. An agent would still have to infer the purpose from the title and group.

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 alternatives. The group tag 'Evolutionary Astrology' and cost tag imply a specialized context, but no explicit conditions, exclusions, or sibling routing are provided.

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 and non-destructive behaviour, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely useful operational facts the annotations do not carry: the tool is an MCP Advanced feature costing 100 credits (Tier 4). It still says nothing about how rounds affect runtime or output, or whether chart context is mandatory for a meaningful debate.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by group and cost metadata; there is no filler or repetition. The brevity is somewhat a result of under-specification rather than disciplined editing, but structurally it is clean.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a high-complexity tool: 8 parameters, a nested chart object with detailed validation rules, and an output schema. The description covers none of that complexity and omits the astrological framing entirely, leaving an agent to infer from the schema alone what inputs matter. Output format is covered by the output schema, so that omission is acceptable, but the rest is a real gap.

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 38% and several parameters (topic, agentA, agentB, rounds, language) carry no schema description, so the description is expected to compensate — and it does not, adding no parameter meaning whatsoever. 'multi-round' only obliquely hints at the rounds parameter, and nothing explains what agentA/agentB strings should contain or how chart is consumed.

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 verb and output ('2 personas debate a topic, multi-round transcript'), so an agent knows this produces a debate transcript rather than a single answer. However, it never differentiates itself from near-neighbours like astroway_mcp_ai_chat or astroway_mcp_multi_agent_coordinate, and it omits that the debate is anchored to an astrological chart, which the schema makes clear.

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: no statement of what situation calls for a two-persona debate over a single-shot chat, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The only extra text is group and cost metadata, which is billing context 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing a 10-credit Tier 1 cost, but omits what the status payload represents or whether it reflects live pool state.

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 very short and front-loads the one substantive fact, but the first sentence is a dangling fragment rather than a complete statement of purpose, and the bracket tags read as metadata padding rather than description.

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 safety, so the description's remaining burden is small. It is still thin on what 'pool status' reports and when it should be invoked, leaving a minor gap for a zero-required-parameter status tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both optional compaction parameters (fields, precision) are thoroughly documented in the schema with examples. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the 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?

The description '8 personas with specialties' is a noun fragment that hints at the returned content but never states what the tool does or what 'pool status' means. It does not distinguish this from siblings like astroway_agent_tools or astroway_mcp_tools_list, which also concern agent/persona inventory.

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 indication of when to call this versus the many sibling agent/tools-listing tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only guidance offered is the cost tag '[Cost: 10 credits (Tier 1)]', which helps budget decisions but says nothing about 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 declare the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld, non-idempotent), and the description usefully adds context beyond that: a 10-turn history cap, 21 supported languages, four persona voices, and a cost behavior where sending your own provider key drops the turn to 5 credits. It stops short of describing failure modes or what the chart object must contain to succeed.

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, front-loaded with the core differentiator ('answered from the positions we computed') before secondary facts about history, languages, and pricing. The trailing group/cost tags are metadata rather than prose, so there is minimal waste.

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 description covers the AI-behavioral surface (grounding, history, language, persona, cost). For a 7-parameter tool with nested objects and low schema coverage, it could say more about the chart input contract, but the essentials are present.

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 43%, so the description should compensate, and it partly does by explaining history (10 turns), language (21), and persona (four voices). However, it says nothing about the required `message`, the complex nested `chart`, or the compact-mode `fields`/`precision` parameters, leaving those to 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — a chat grounded in computed chart positions rather than the model's sun-sign memory — which is clearly distinguishable from report-generation siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative among the many AI siblings (explain_aspect, explain_transit, comparison_coach), 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 explains what the tool is but never says when to reach for it versus the other AI siblings or the narrative-report tools. No prerequisites or selection conditions are given; 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?

The annotations already declare a safe read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds useful cost context (100 credits, Tier 4) and group membership, but does not disclose rate limits, auth requirements, or what the AI coach actually returns. With annotations covering safety, this partial extra context merits a 3.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded, with cost and group metadata placed clearly after the core sentence. It wastes no words, although it is arguably too sparse for a tool of this complexity.

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 6-parameter tool with nested chart objects and multiple AI/synastry siblings, the description is far too thin. The output schema covers return values, but the description does not explain what 'coaching' entails or when to select this tool over alternatives, leaving a substantial contextual gap.

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 67%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. It says 'two charts' but does not clarify the role of the required question field, language, precision, or fields parameters, nor does it help compensate for the less-documented parameters.

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 (two charts) and domain (relationship dynamics), but the verb 'Coach' is vague about what the tool actually produces. It does not distinguish this from sibling reports like astroway_reports_ai_synastry_narrative, leaving an agent unsure whether this is an interactive coaching session, a report, or something else.

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 is provided. The description does not mention when this tool should be chosen over similar two-chart tools such as synastry reports or multi-chart context, nor are any preconditions or exclusions 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 readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added behavioral fact is the cost (100 credits, Tier 4), which is genuinely useful for an agent budgeting calls, but nothing is said about latency, auth, or 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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the terseness here reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication. The metadata lines consume half the length without adding invocation help.

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, but the description leaves key input questions open: how planets must be named, which chart object is required for a natal calculation, and what the aspectType enum means in context. For a 7-parameter tool with a nested birth-data object, this 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 description coverage is only 43%, and the undescribed parameters include the three required ones (planet1, planet2, aspectType). The phrase 'between two planets' loosely implies planet1/planet2 but gives no naming convention or accepted values, and aspectType, language, fields and precision get nothing despite 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?

States a specific verb and resource: an explanation of an aspect between two planets. An agent can tell what it does, though it never contrasts itself with the sibling astroway_mcp_ai_explain_transit, which is the nearest alternative.

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 such as explain_transit or the report tools. 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 declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful operational context by disclosing the cost (100 credits, Tier 4) and the AI grouping, which helps an agent budget. It does not explain the non-idempotent nature of an AI-generated explanation or any latency/rate behavior, so it adds some but not rich value.

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 carries the core purpose, with the group and cost tags kept as structured metadata rather than prose. It is tight and waste-free, though its brevity edges into under-specification rather than model conciseness.

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 8-parameter tool with a nested chart object and five required fields, the description omits routing guidance against several plausible siblings and says nothing about the transit inputs. The presence of an output schema excuses it from describing return values, but the selection and input story is still incomplete.

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 38% and the five required parameters (chart, transitDate, transitPlanet, natalPlanet, aspectType) carry no schema descriptions at all. The description only obliquely implies a transit/natal pairing and says nothing about expected values or formats for those required fields, 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Explain' applied to 'a current transit hitting your natal chart.' An agent can tell what the tool produces. It stops short of distinguishing itself from close siblings such as astroway_mcp_ai_explain_aspect or astroway_reports_ai_transit_narrative, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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 named alternative. The sentence implies the context (a transit to your natal chart) but gives no condition that would route an agent here instead of the aspect explainer or the transit narrative report. This matches the 'no guidance' band.

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 safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It does add parallel execution and a 100-credit Tier 4 cost, which is useful. However, it omits latency implications from LLM synthesis, auth requirements, and any detail about valid agent choices.

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 text is very short and front-loads the core action before the group and cost tags. No sentence is wasted, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than thorough contextual completeness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a complex tool with a nested chart object, six parameters, required agent and question fields, and many sibling tools. The description explains almost none of that beyond a two-line summary and cost, leaving significant gaps even though an output schema exists for return values.

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 50%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning for question, agents, chart, fields, language, or precision. In particular, the required 'agents' array and its 2-4 item constraint, as well as how 'chart' relates to the question, are left entirely to 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?

The description gives a high-level verb and resource ('Run N personas in parallel + LLM synthesis') but does not define what a persona is, what is being coordinated, or how this differs from siblings such as astroway_mcp_agent_debate. The [Group] and [Cost] tags are metadata rather than purpose clarification.

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 closest sibling, astroway_mcp_agent_debate, is not mentioned, and the cost tier alone does not tell an agent when this tool should be selected.

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 openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered elsewhere. The description adds only the cost tag (10 credits, Tier 1); it says nothing about batch limits, what the compact response excludes, or the idempotentHint=false implication that repeated calls may vary.

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 single sentence plus metadata tags are front-loaded and free of padding, so it is structurally clean. However, the brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness: the sentence carries almost no callable 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a tool with an enum-driven intent, a compact-mode fields selector and a 6-item batch cap, the description omits nearly everything an agent needs to choose and configure 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?

Schema description coverage is only 50%, so the description is expected to compensate — and it does not. The compact-mode controls (fields, precision) and the intent enum are never mentioned in the description, leaving the agent to discover their meaning entirely from 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?

"Compact context for MCP agents working across multiple charts" restates the tool name (multi-chart context) without a concrete verb or resource for what is actually produced. It never says it computes natal chart data for multiple subjects, nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling report/chart tools like astroway_reports_natal or astroway_reports_synastry.

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 the implied "working across multiple charts," from which an agent might infer batch multi-subject use. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no mention of when a single-chart or report sibling is preferable, despite ~40 alternatives.

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?

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds cost and group context, which is useful, but does not disclose any operational behavior such as result format, ranking details, or rate-limit implications.

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 very short and front-loads the core phrase before the bracketed metadata. There is no wasted prose, though the concision contributes to the broader underspecification problem rather than being a structural flaw itself.

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 five parameters including a nested chart object, exists among many siblings, and has an output schema. Despite that complexity, the description does not explain selection criteria, query semantics, or how this differs from report-generation tools, leaving it materially incomplete for agent routing.

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 moderate at 60%, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It does not clarify what 'query' should contain, how 'topK' affects results, or how 'chart' is used, so key semantics remain dependent on the schema 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?

The description says 'Keyword-tag scoring over chart chunks,' which reveals the mechanism and resource type, but it never states the core action as a verb such as 'search' and does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling retrieval/report tools. An agent can infer it is a retrieval tool, but the purpose remains vague.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives to consider. It only supplies group and cost metadata, leaving the agent with no routing signal among the sibling 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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world, non-idempotent). The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond them: the response arrives as Server-Sent Events, and each call costs 100 credits (Tier 4). It says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or what the stream events look like, so it is adequate but 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?

One front-loaded sentence that states the core capability, followed by two bracketed metadata tags. Very tight, though the group/cost tags sit after the payload rather than being folded in naturally.

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 5-parameter tool with a nested birth-chart object, no output schema, and only 60% schema description coverage, the definition is thin. It does not describe the streamed response shape, streaming lifecycle, or the required message parameter, and gives no guidance on how chart context should be formed.

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 60% and the nested chart object carries extensive inline documentation that the description does not repeat. The 'optional chart context' phrase confirms the chart parameter exists but adds no semantics for message, language, fields, or precision, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: an SSE streaming chat completion, with the chart-context option noted. It is clearer than a bare 'chat', but it never distinguishes itself from sibling astroway_mcp_ai_chat (presumably the non-streaming counterpart) or astroway_mcp_tool_call_stream, so the agent must guess which chat entry point 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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The description notes that chart context is optional but never says when you should supply it or how it changes the answer, and it never mentions the sibling chat tools as alternatives.

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 covered without the description. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in annotations: the 10-credit Tier 1 cost. However, for a streaming tool it says nothing about stream termination, error semantics, or partial delivery, which is the behavior an agent most needs here.

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 short and the core statement is front-loaded, so nothing is wasted. But the two bracketed metadata lines are boilerplate and the resulting length is too thin for the tool's complexity, so brevity here reads as under-specification rather than tightness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 5 parameters (including a nested arbitrary 'args' object), no output schema, and an opaque streaming return, the definition is far too thin: it never explains what the streamed envelope contains, how the stream ends, or how 'args' maps to the target tool. An agent must guess at most of the call contract.

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 40%: 'tool' (the sole required parameter) and 'args' carry no description, and 'language' has only an enum. The description supplies zero parameter guidance, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a 5-parameter tool with a nested free-form object.

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?

It pairs a specific verb ('SSE-stream') with a resource ('tool call envelope'), which is more than a tautology, but 'tool call envelope' is unexplained jargon and the definition does nothing to separate it from close siblings like astroway_mcp_streaming or astroway_mcp_tools_list. An agent cannot tell from this text which one 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternative exists for the same need. The only context is the group/cost tag, which tells the agent a price but not a 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=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a spec version and notes that cost is not in the public credit manifest, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explain what the manifest contains, how it is scoped, or any other operational behavior beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loads its main claim about being an auto-generated manifest. The bracketed group and cost lines add metadata without excessive verbosity. It is efficient, though the bracket metadata is only marginally useful for tool selection.

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 the input schema is fully documented, so return values and parameters do not need explanation in the description. However, the description remains thin on purpose and usage guidance, making it only minimally complete for an agent deciding whether to call this tool. The low complexity of the tool keeps it from being inadequate, but notable gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (fields and precision) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is in the input schema. With complete schema coverage and no additional description detail, a 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 says it is an auto-generated tool manifest for MCP clients, which identifies the general resource but uses no action verb and does not explicitly state that it lists available MCP tools. It also does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as astroway_agent_tools or the MCP-related tools. Purpose is therefore implied rather than clearly stated.

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 context is the phrase 'for MCP clients,' which implies an audience but gives no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tools. This is the same level as a definition that provides only an implied context.

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 the credit cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and group label, which is useful operational context, but it does not disclose that sect is derived from the chart, the default period-length behavior, or any limits on the returned span.

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 verb, resource and domain, followed by two bracketed metadata tags. Nothing is redundant and the essential concept arrives first.

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 the input schema is fully documented. The description is adequate for invoking the tool; the only real gap is guidance on the computed span and how sect influences results, which is minor given the schema's depth.

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 body schema is unusually thorough (format constraints, ayanamsa, timezone handling, houseSystem letters). The description adds nothing about maxYears duration or fields/precision compact-mode parameters, so baseline 3 applies with the schema doing all the work.

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 specific resource (Firdaria planetary periods), then defines the technique as the traditional Persian time-lord system based on sect and planet order. An agent knows exactly what this produces, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from prognostic siblings like profections or primary directions.

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 indication of when to choose this over the many other prognostics tools (profections, primary directions, progressions, returns). The description explains what Firdaria is but never states the use case, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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 covered. The description adds the billing context (100 credits, Tier 4), which is genuinely useful for an agent deciding whether to call it, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or period constraints.

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 plus two bracketed metadata tags; no filler, no restatement of the title. Every element earns its place.

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, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a Tier-4 tool with an extremely close sibling, the definition omits the routing guidance an agent needs to choose correctly, leaving it only minimally complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents body/fields/precision thoroughly. The description only says 'for a given period', which does not map cleanly onto the schema's required 'year' field, so it adds little beyond the structured data. 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 verb ('Generate') and resource ('combined forecast calendar') and enumerates the content it produces: transits, lunar phases, ingresses, and retrograde stations. The word 'combined' hints at a superset of the sibling transit_calendar, but the definition never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.

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 scope hint is 'for a given period'. There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over astroway_prognostics_transit_calendar or astroway_prognostics_transits, and no prerequisites or exclusions. With a near-identical calendar sibling present, this 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 and determinism are covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context — the 50-credit Tier 3 cost and the fact that a full chart (not a summary) is returned. It says nothing about the two-part input requirement or failure modes, so it adds some value but not rich behavioral detail.

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 core computation, followed by compact group and cost metadata. No sentence is wasted and nothing is 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description names the computation and its cost. What it omits is the two-part input shape the schema enforces — natal birth data plus a required afterDate anchoring the search — which is the one thing an agent could easily get wrong.

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 schema thoroughly documents birth data, afterDate, fields and precision, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already carries.

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 — finding the next date the Moon returns to its natal longitude and returning the full lunar return chart. However, it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling astroway_prognostics_planetary_return, which plausibly computes returns for any body including the Moon.

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 or when-not guidance and no named alternative, so the agent must infer from the name alone that this is the Moon-specific case of return charts. The only extra context supplied is grouping and cost, not usage direction.

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 cost ('50 credits (Tier 3)') and group metadata, which is useful behavioral context for budgeting calls, but it says nothing about the calculation's inputs/outputs beyond the converse flag.

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 plus bracketed metadata tags; the core purpose is front-loaded and nothing is padded. The cost/group tags are structured rather than prose waste.

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 a rich, fully documented input schema, an output schema, and complete safety annotations, the description only needs to identify the technique and its distinctive option. It does that, though the parenthetical definition of minor progressions is thin for an agent unfamiliar with the technique.

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 fully documents body, fields and precision, including targetDate, targetTime and targetTzOffset. The description's mention of 'a target date' and 'converse direction' only loosely mirrors two nested parameters and 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 and resource ('Calculate minor progressions') and defines the technique via the parenthetical '(lunar month-for-a-year)', which is genuinely informative for an astrologer. However, it does not differentiate itself from the many sibling progression/direction tools (progressions, tertiary_progressions, symbolic_directions), so an agent still has to infer which technique applies.

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 mention of alternatives among the crowded prognostics siblings. 'Supports converse direction' is a capability note rather than routing guidance, so the agent gets no help deciding between minor progressions and progressions/tertiary_progressions.

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 a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful non-annotation facts: the result is a set of full charts, and the call costs 50 credits at Tier 3. It says nothing about how many returns can come back or payload size, so it is useful but 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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded, plus compact bracketed group and cost tags. Every sentence carries information and nothing is wasted.

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 cost and group tags cover the operationally relevant extras. The remaining gap is the opaque numeric planetId and the year parameter, neither of which the description clarifies for an agent assembling a 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 birth-data and compact-mode fields are documented in exhaustive detail in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the parameters themselves; in particular it does not explain how the numeric planetId maps to a planet, which the schema also leaves undocumented.

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: find all planetary returns to natal longitude within a year, and notes it returns full charts. The phrase 'any planet' implicitly separates it from the sibling astroway_prognostics_solar_return and astroway_prognostics_lunar_return, though it never names them, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. It never tells the agent when a general planetary return is preferable to the planet-specific solar or lunar return siblings, leaving the choice to inference from the '[Group: Prognostics]' tag 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 establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the method variants and that output is a timeline of aspect hits, but says nothing about cost implications beyond the tag, computation weight, or what the 'key' rate selects.

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-loaded with the action and the return value, with no filler. The trailing group/cost tags are metadata rather than prose, so the core text is tight, though the description is arguably too terse for a Tier 3 niche technique.

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?

Because an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the definition does not need to explain return values or side effects. What remains missing is routing guidance among numerous prognostics siblings and any hint about the direction rate/method selection, making it minimally adequate for a specialized tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents body, fields, precision, maxAge, key, and aspectAngles in detail. The description only loosely gestures at maxAge ('up to a maximum age') and does not clarify the Ptolemaic/Regiomontanus distinction against the numeric 'key' rate parameter, so it neither adds nor detracts much.

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 primary directions'), names the two supported method variants (Ptolemaic or Regiomontanus), and gives the scope ('up to a maximum age') plus the return shape. It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as symbolic_directions or minor_progressions, so an agent must already know the difference between primary and symbolic directions.

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 named alternative among the many prognostics siblings. The phrase 'up to a maximum age' hints at a scope limit but never tells the agent how to choose this tool over transit_calendar, progressions, or symbolic_directions.

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 fully covered structurally. The description's genuine addition is the billing context (20 credits, Tier 2) and the group tag, which is useful but thin; it says nothing about computation behavior or constraints 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 front-loaded sentence lists the computed outputs with no filler, followed by compact group and cost tags. Nothing is wasted, though the tags are metadata 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the rich body schema covers inputs. For a read-only calculation tool the description is adequate, with only the sibling-routing guidance 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 body, fields, and precision thoroughly, including the natal-plus-target-date structure. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('annual profections') and enumerates the concrete outputs: profected Ascendant, lord of the year, activated house, and monthly sub-rulers. This distinguishes it from sibling techniques like progressions, returns, directions, and firdaria by naming the technique, though it never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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: nothing tells the agent when to pick profections over firdaria, progressions, or the various return tools, nor does it explain the role of the required target date in driving the annual calculation. Usage is only inferable from the technique 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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the returned content (progressed planets, angles, aspects to natal) and the cost tier (50 credits, Tier 3), which matters for an agent managing quota.

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 with zero filler: verb first, output second. Group and cost metadata sit cleanly at the end without obscuring the core statement.

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 the body schema is exhaustively documented, so return values and parameters are adequately covered. The remaining gap is orientation within a large prognostics family: nothing explains why one would choose this over tertiary/minor progressions, which is what an agent most needs here.

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%, so the nested body, fields, precision, targetDate, converse and targetTime parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only obliquely echoes 'target date' and adds no format or semantics beyond it; 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 verb (Calculate) and resource (secondary progressed chart) and pins down the technique with '(day-for-a-year)', which is a real differentiator. However, it never names or contrasts the adjacent progression siblings (tertiary, minor progressions) that an agent must choose between.

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 statement of when to pick secondary progressions over tertiary or minor progressions, nor any prerequisite (valid natal birth data, target date semantics). The agent is left to infer usage 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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations lack: the 500-credit Tier 6 cost and the explicit instruction to confirm with the user first, which materially changes invocation 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?

One sentence of purpose followed by structured Group/Cost metadata; the core meaning and the cost caution are front-loaded with no wasted prose. The cost block is repetitive but serves a routing function.

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 cost/confirmation guidance is present. Still missing for a complex 8-parameter, nested-object tool: what the search window knobs do and how the result is shaped (e.g. a narrowed time window with confidence).

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 38% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at 'life events' and 'transit/direction hits' but never explains orb, stepMinutes, searchRangeMinutes, the primary/symbolic/progression method toggles, precision or fields.

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 (rectify) plus resource (birth time) and the inputs that drive it (life events, transit/direction hits), so the tool's function is unmistakable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling astroway_prognostics_rectification_trutine, which an agent would need to choose between.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'Rectify an approximate birth time', and the cost line adds an actionable procedural rule ('confirm with user before invoking'). But there is no explicit when-to-use versus the other rectification tool or when rectification is premature (e.g. no events supplied).

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