ERUX Astrology & Ephemeris Engine

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 genuinely new behavioral context: the response is deterministic, it mirrors the /ask slash command, it always ends with a CTA to ERUX, and it explains which houses/significators/timing triggers apply.

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 purpose, then the invocation context, then the output content. Every sentence carries information an agent can act on, and the marketing-flavored adjectives ('authentic, deterministic') do not bloat the structure.

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

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated. The description is complete enough for a single-required-param read tool with full annotation coverage, though a routing note distinguishing it from get_interpretation would close the remaining 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% and both parameters carry their own descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting; the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces what 'question' means by listing example inquiries, but adds no format, length, or platform-selection guidance 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?

States a specific verb (provide guidance) and resource (astrological framework guidance) and enumerates the substance of the answer: houses, ruling significators (Karakas), and timing triggers. It never names or contrasts itself against the sibling tools (get_interpretation in particular), so an agent cannot distinguish the two from the description 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 parenthetical example list (career shift, relationship milestones, financial timing, health, relocation) implies the domain of suitable questions, and the Discord/Google Chat slash-command mapping hints at the calling context. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_interpretation/calculate_chart, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral value: it discloses the return payload (planetary placements, active Dasha cycle, KB insights, chart_ui_url, optional PNG) and instructs the agent on how to present results. That is meaningfully 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?

The purpose is front-loaded and the middle sentence efficiently enumerates outputs. But the trailing 'CRITICAL FOR AI' block is verbose, repeats the ERUX link idea already stated earlier, and embeds a literal Markdown template — padding that does not fully earn its place in a definition.

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 spelled out, and the description does cover the two operating modes and the optional image output. The remaining gap is the unresolved parameter alias/arbitration ambiguity across 11 parameters, which the description never clarifies.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the country-vs-birth-details split at a high level, but it does not resolve the ambiguity created by duplicated alias parameters (city/birth_city, date/birth_date, country/birth_country) or the dual role of 'country' for a mundane chart vs. location disambiguation.

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 calculation engine and two slash-command equivalents. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like calculate_dasha or get_interpretation, even though it claims to compute placements and Dasha cycles that those tools cover.

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 gives mode guidance ('Supports EITHER a country name ... OR personal birth details'), which tells the agent the two valid input shapes. However, there are no when-not-to-use rules and no named alternatives (calculate_dasha, get_interpretation) despite obvious overlap, so the routing decision is left implicit.

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 safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context: the scope of the calculation (120-year cycle), the output includes Mahadasha/Antardasha periods and active dates, and a direct link to the interactive calendar. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a read-only calculation tool this is sufficient.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then lists required inputs, then output details. It is two sentences but dense; every clause adds value. Minor improvement: separating the output list into a bullet could aid scanning, 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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the domain, required inputs, defaults, and output nature. It omits how aliases are resolved and the significance of target_date, but these are arguably edge cases. For a complex astrological tool, it is nearly 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by stating defaults ('time' defaults to '12:00'), format expectations (YYYY-MM-DD, HH:MM), and that city is required. However, it does not explain aliases (birth_city, birth_date) or the role of target_date, user_prompt, and country, which are only described in 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?

States a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('classical Parashara Vimshottari Dasha planetary timeline'), and names the sibling-adjacent capability ('/dasha slash command'). An agent can distinguish it from calculate_chart, get_horoscope, and get_yogas 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?

It specifies required inputs (birth date, time, city) and default behavior, which implies the when-to-use context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., calculate_chart for natal charts, get_horoscope for daily predictions) or state when-not-to-use this one.

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 (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the server auto-computes today's transit date from location coordinates, and the daily cadence returns 'astronomical_time_windows' and 'panchang_timing'. It does not disclose auth, rate limits, or cost.

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, then mandatory params, then cadence specifics — a sensible ordering. It is long and repeats the birth_date warning that already appears in the schema, but nearly every sentence carries 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?

For a 15-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical invocation path, the returned payload for daily cadence, and the anti-hallucination constraint on times. The alias parameters are only explained in the schema, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage but leaves the description slightly short of fully self-contained.

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 baseline is 3; the description goes further by disambiguating the two easily-confused date parameters and the birth-city vs current-city distinction, which is the highest-risk invocation error here. It omits any mention of the alias parameters (city/date/time/target_city) or include_image.

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 ('Generate a personalized transit horoscope, real-world strategic forecast, and exact astronomical time-windows') and enumerates the cadence variants, so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as ask_astrology_guidance or calculate_chart, leaving overlap for an agent to resolve.

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 clear conditional routing for cadence ('daily' vs 'weekly' vs 'monthly' vs 'yearly') and an explicit rule for the date trap: pass a future date into 'target_date', not 'birth_date'. It stops short of naming alternative sibling tools or when NOT to use this one.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it works with or without birth details (a behavioral fallback) and ties it to a slash-command equivalent, but says nothing about output shape, latency, or auth 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before examples and the slash-command note. No filler, though the examples list makes the first sentence long.

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 purpose, topic examples, and the optional birth-detail behavior. It could do more to disambiguate the many overlapping city/date alias parameters, but it is adequate for a zero-required-parameter read 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 baseline is 3. The description restates pillar values for topic, but its example list includes 'dasha_analysis', which does not appear in the schema's topic enumeration ('inner_growth' does), a mild inconsistency that could mislead value selection.

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 ('Get deep personalized astrological interpretation') and scopes it to canonical life pillars with concrete examples. It is distinguishable from calculator siblings like calculate_chart or calculate_dasha, though it never explicitly says so.

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 notes the tool 'can be run with or without specific birth details' and maps to the /interpret slash command, which gives implied usage context. However it never states when to prefer this over ask_astrology_guidance or get_horoscope, nor any exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the required input set, the dual natal/mundane modes, and what the call returns (active yogas, classical definitions, ERUX divisional breakdown link).

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 and examples followed by prerequisites and return contents. The Discord/Google Chat slash-command sentence is the weakest line but does aid context matching; overall no significant padding.

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

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

With an output schema and annotations present, the description need not explain return values, and it still summarizes them. It covers the two invocation modes and their inputs; the only real gap is that it never explains how the varga/divisional link or alias parameters should be used, which is minor given full schema coverage.

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 all 9 parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description names only date/time/city/country and is silent on the four birth_* alias parameters and user_prompt, so it adds little and does not resolve the alias-vs-base-param ambiguity.

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 precise verb+resource ('Identify ... Vedic Yogas present in a birth or mundane chart') and enumerates concrete examples (Raja, Dhana, Pancha Mahapurusha, Gaja Kesari, Budhaditya). No sibling tool covers yogas — calculate_chart, calculate_dasha, and get_interpretation are clearly different resources, so an agent can route 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?

Gives a clear precondition: birth details ('date','time','city') OR country name ('country'), and frames the two modes (natal vs. mundane chart). It does not, however, say when to prefer this over calculate_chart for the same chart or note any exclusions/limitations.

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