ERUX Astrology & Ephemeris Engine

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the framework is "deterministic" and that output names houses, Karakas and timing triggers, which is genuine added context, but it says nothing about latency, failure modes, or question length 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, but marketing language ("authentic," "direct CTA to explore the full chart on ERUX") consumes space without helping an agent decide or call correctly.

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

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

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile; for a one-parameter tool this is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation, which matters here because five adjacent astrology tools exist.

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 0% for the single required `question` parameter, so the description must carry the load. The listed life-question categories (career shift, relationship milestones, financial timing) do help an agent phrase a valid question, but there is no guidance on phrasing, scope, or whether free-form text is expected.

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 ("Provide ... astrological framework guidance for any life question") and enumerates the domain (career, relationships, finance, health, relocation). It never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_interpretation or get_horoscope, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which of these to pick.

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

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

The example question categories imply when this tool is appropriate, and the mention of the /ask slash command ties it to a known user gesture. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing against the five sibling tools, so the agent must infer selection.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuine context: deterministic output, the dynamic 'chart_ui_url', Dasha cycle, and knowledge-base insights. It omits error behavior and any latency/cost notes, but goes well beyond the annotations.

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

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

Front-loaded with purpose and modes, but the long 'CRITICAL FOR AI' presentation directive is UI-formatting guidance rather than tool-selection content and inflates the description. The redundant listing of outputs also adds length without adding invocation value.

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

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

For an 11-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description should resolve the duplicate birth_* vs plain field pairs and explain system/user_prompt/include_image. Those gaps make correct invocation ambiguous, so it is incomplete for the tool's 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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 11 parameters, the description carries the full burden, yet it only gestures at 'date', 'time', 'city', and 'country'. It never distinguishes the personal fields from the parallel birth_date/birth_time/birth_city/birth_country fields, and leaves 'system', 'user_prompt', and 'include_image' entirely 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 and resource ('calculate a deterministic personal natal chart or national mundane chart') and names the underlying engine and slash-command equivalents, making the scope unmistakable and distinguishing it from siblings like get_horoscope or calculate_dasha.

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 frames the two modes ('Supports EITHER a country name ... OR personal birth details'), which lets an agent pick the right input path. It stops short of naming when to prefer a sibling tool or excluding any cases.

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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's job is lower; it adds the required-input behavior (birth date, time, city) and describes the shape of the result (Mahadasha/Antardasha, dates, karmic significance, calendar link). It omits any error/permission context but is solidly additive.

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

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

Front-loads the core purpose and inputs before the return-value list, with no filler sentences. Slightly dense in the second half but every clause carries information.

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

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

An output schema exists so return values need not be restated, yet the description spends much of its length on them while leaving half the parameters undocumented and the alias pairs unexplained. Adequate but leaves real gaps for a 10-parameter 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 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate and only does so for three (date, time with default, city). It ignores country, birth_date, birth_time, target_date, user_prompt, and birth_country, and does not resolve the ambiguity between 'date' vs 'birth_date' or 'city' vs 'birth_city' aliases.

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 named resource (Parashara Vimshottari Dasha 120-year timeline) and clarifies the input subject (person or founding event). This is distinguishable from siblings like calculate_chart or get_horoscope without opening any schema.

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?

Mentions it corresponds to the /dasha slash command, which implies routing context, but never says when to prefer it over calculate_chart or get_interpretation, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the server auto-computes the transit date from location coordinates, and daily cadence returns astronomical_time_windows and panchang_timing. It stops short of describing pagination, error behavior, or the shape of the forecast output itself.

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?

Long but front-loaded: purpose first, then cadences, then mandatory params and the critical date-handling warning. Every sentence carries operational content, though the MANDATORY/CRITICAL emphasis blocks make it denser than strictly necessary.

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 14-param tool with an output schema, the description covers cadence semantics, required inputs, the birth_date pitfall, and the no-invented-hours constraint. The residual gap is the ambiguity among city/current_city/target_city and date/time params, which the agent must still infer from names alone.

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 0% across 14 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It does disambiguate the two highest-risk params (birth_date vs target_date) and documents birth_city, current_city, cadence, and user_prompt. However, city, date, time, target_city, birth_time, birth_country, and current_country are never mentioned, leaving a confusing cluster of similarly named location/date fields 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 (generate a personalized transit horoscope with time-windows and strategic forecast) and names the exact commands it maps to (/horoscope, /daily). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like calculate_chart or get_yogas, which do not produce cadence-based transit forecasts.

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 enumerates the four cadences with what each returns, states the mandatory parameters, and gives a strong when-not rule ('NEVER pass today's date into birth_date') with the correct alternative (target_date) for future dates. This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it mirrors the /interpret slash command and tolerates missing birth data, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about output length, cost, or latency for a 'deep' interpretation. Moderate added value against a low annotation 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?

Front-loads the core action and keeps to three sentences. The parenthetical example list is long but earns its place by supplying the otherwise undocumented 'topic' vocabulary. No filler or repetition.

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 description is not required, but for a tool with 11 undocumented optional parameters the description is far too thin: an agent cannot tell what combination of birth/current/target city and date/time fields produce a meaningful result, nor how the 'system' parameter alters the interpretation.

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 0% across 11 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It enumerates valid 'topic' values (career_and_vocation, relationships, dasha_analysis, wealth_and_finance, health_and_vitality) but leaves city, date, time, system, birth_city, birth_date, birth_country, target_city, current_city, and user_prompt entirely unexplained, including the distinction between birthplace and target/current city.

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 (get) and resource (personalized astrological interpretation) scoped to canonical life pillars, with concrete topic examples. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling ask_astrology_guidance, whose name suggests overlapping intent, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate without opening 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?

'Can be run with or without specific birth details' gives one useful precondition, and the slash-command mapping gives context. But there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing against ask_astrology_guidance or get_horoscope, leaving selection largely implied.

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 burden is lifted. The description adds useful context beyond that: it discloses the return content (active yogas, classical definitions, link to ERUX divisional varga breakdown), which is more than the 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose before preconditions and output, with no filler. The middle slash-command sentence is marginally expendable but overall 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be re-explained, and the description still summarizes them. The main gap is parameter ambiguity – with 9 params including duplicated alias sets at 0% coverage, an agent still cannot confidently choose between city and birth_city or know what user_prompt does.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It mentions only date/time/city/country and ignores the duplicate birth_city/birth_date/birth_time/birth_country aliases and user_prompt entirely, leaving an agent unclear on which of the parallel parameter sets to populate or why both exist.

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 ('Identify') and resource ('auspicious & powerful classical Vedic Yogas') and grounds it with concrete examples (Raja Yogas, Dhana Yogas, Pancha Mahapurusha, Gaja Kesari, Budhaditya). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like calculate_chart or calculate_dasha, which compute rather than identify named yogas.

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 an explicit precondition ('Requires birth details date/time/city or country name') and maps to the Discord/Google Chat slash command. It does not, however, state when to prefer a sibling tool or any exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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