Astro API

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds 'request' and 'owned,' implying a scoped, possibly asynchronous cancellation. It does not describe side effects, idempotency, or how to confirm cancellation, but the core destructive signal is already covered by 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 a single efficient sentence with no wasted words, and it places the core action and scope front and center.

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 schema and annotations make the basic call viable, but with no output schema and a destructive operation, the description does not mention post-call behavior such as verifying cancellation via job_status or whether the request is guaranteed.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters, including the token fallback guidance. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Request cancellation') and resource ('one owned Astrologos job'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. This also distinguishes it from siblings like job_status, job_result, and run.

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 context is clear: use this when you want to cancel an owned Astrologos job. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the intended usage is not in doubt.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scope of the link (account settings, plans, tokens) but provides no further behavioral details such as whether authentication is required or whether the link is user-specific. This is acceptable given the annotations, but not extra transparent.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and scope without any filler. Every word 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?

For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It could optionally note that the result is a URL or that the link may require authentication, but these are minor gaps given the low complexity.

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

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

The input schema is empty with 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning because there are none to document, but no compensation is needed.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('Astrologos web settings link') with explicit scope ('account settings, plans, and tokens'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_token or usage without needing to open their schemas.

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 purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or mention of alternatives. For a simple link-returning tool this is adequate, but it leaves the agent to infer context from the name and description alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: this operation does not consume execution quota. It also signals that the tool supports both search and direct read modes, which is useful for caller expectations.

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

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

One compact, front-loaded sentence contains the core action, the resource, and the key cost-related benefit. There is no filler or repetition of schema 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?

Given the simple parameter set, full schema coverage, and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the tool's purpose and a unique behavioral trait, though it does not describe return shape; in the absence of an output schema this is a minor gap for a help-lookup 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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all four parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific detail, but it does not need to; the schema carries the semantic burden, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description names a specific verb-resource pair, 'Search or read Astrologos help', and clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings, which are all job/usage/validation tools rather than help access. An agent can tell at a glance what this tool is for.

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

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

It provides clear context for use: when an agent needs help content, and adds the distinctive benefit 'without consuming execution quota', which helps select it over potentially quota-consuming tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but siblings are not plausible alternatives for help lookup.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context ('stored', 'completed', 'owned') but does not disclose return format, size limits, or whether missing output is handled. No contradiction with 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?

A single, information-dense sentence front-loads the action ('Read') and resource, then adds the key qualifiers 'stored', 'completed', and 'owned'. No filler or redundancy.

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

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

For a simple one-required-parameter read operation with read-only annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential usage context. The only notable gap is that the return representation of stdout and stderr is not described, but this is minor given the simplicity of the 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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no new semantic detail about job_id or token beyond identifying the operation's target, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and a precise resource ('stored stdout and stderr for one completed owned Astrologos job'). It clearly distinguishes this output-fetching tool from siblings like astrologos.abort_job, astrologos.run, and especially astrologos.job_status, which would report status rather than captured output.

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

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

The description implies when to use the tool — only for jobs that are completed and owned — but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative. Context suggests job_status is for status and this tool is for output, but that contrast is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds the 'owned' constraint, which is useful context beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose what the status response looks like, whether it polls, or what happens for non-existent jobs. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence with zero waste. The verb, resource, and scope are all front-loaded. Every word 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?

For a simple read-status tool with annotations covering safety and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not clarify what 'status' includes (e.g., state, progress, timestamps) or how it differs from job_result, which could matter for an agent choosing between them. The lack of an output schema raises the burden slightly, but the tool is simple enough that a 3 is fair.

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 both parameters. The description adds the 'owned' qualifier, which implies the job_id must belong to the caller, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('current status for one owned Astrologos job'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like astrologos.job_result (which likely fetches results) and astrologos.abort_job (which mutates). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the scope is clear enough to differentiate.

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

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

The description implies usage: use this when you need the current status of a single job. It does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like job_result for results or abort_job for cancellation, nor does it mention prerequisites like ownership or job completion. The context is clear but lacks explicit routing 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 convey destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds the return behavior ('job id plus sync output when available'), but it does not disclose the side-effect model of running arbitrary Astrologos source code or clarify what makes sync output available. It does not contradict the annotations.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. It communicates the core action and primary return values efficiently.

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

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

This is an 8-parameter execution tool with no output schema and a destructive annotation, yet the description is minimal. It does not explain mode semantics, async follow-up via job_status/job_result, auth/token handling, output format, or destructive side-effect risks, leaving an agent without enough context for correct invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and every parameter already has a meaningful description. The tool description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. 'Sync output when available' loosely relates to mode, but the schema already documents execution modes.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run'), identifies the exact resource ('an Astrologos program'), and states the return value ('job id plus sync output when available'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like astrologos.job_status and astrologos.job_result, which operate on already-created jobs rather than creating them.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor does it explain how sync/async modes should affect the follow-up workflow. The verb 'Run' implies the use case, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are named.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the 'authenticated account' context, which is useful but also implied by the token parameter. It does not disclose additional behavior such as what happens when quota is exceeded or whether the operation is instantaneous. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. There is no redundant wording, and it immediately conveys the tool's purpose.

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 simple read-only tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient. It states what is read and for whom. It could benefit from a note about the absence of side effects, but that is already covered by annotations. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%: the token parameter is fully described in the schema with a note about preferring Authorization: Bearer. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Read') and a clear resource ('current quota and reservation usage for the authenticated account'). It is immediately distinct from sibling tools like astrologos.job_status (job status) and astrologos.run (execute jobs), so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 is functional but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or recommend alternatives (e.g., 'Use this to check usage before running a job'). The use case is implied by the resource, but no explicit when-to-use 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=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the behavioral trait that token material is not returned, which is useful for an agent to know. However, it does not mention authentication requirements beyond the parameter description, which is in the schema.

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, front-loaded with purpose. No filler. Very efficient.

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

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

The tool has one optional parameter and no output schema. The description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean or status), which could be important for an agent to interpret the result. It also does not mention any error conditions. However, the simplicity of the tool mitigates this 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 100%, with the parameter described as 'Optional fallback Astrologos MCP token. Prefer Authorization: Bearer.' The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it rests at baseline 3.

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

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

States a clear verb 'Validate' and a specific resource 'Astrologos token'. The qualifier 'without returning token material' clarifies it's a non-revealing check. It distinguishes from siblings, none of which relate to token validation.

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

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for checking token validity, but does not state exclusions or alternatives. The sibling tools are about jobs and usage, so context is minimal.

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