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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the computational logic (Ascendant advances per year of life) and the output components. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, mention any side effects, or discuss rate limits. The behavioral transparency is adequate but not enhanced beyond the core description.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence defines the tool and its core mechanism, the second clarifies input requirements. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the key 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough information for an AI to understand its purpose, inputs, and outputs. It explains the output fields (age, month, sign, house, lord) but lacks a structured example or details about the return format. With many sibling tools, this is sufficient but could be slightly more detailed.

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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds context about the profection technique but does not provide additional semantic details beyond what is in the schema (e.g., no format examples or constraints). The schema already explains each parameter sufficiently.

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 defines the tool as computing annual and monthly profections, a specific Hellenistic time-lord technique. It explains the concept (Ascendant advances one sign per year) and explicitly lists the returned fields (age, month, profected sign, house, lord). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like transits or returns.

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 states the tool applies to a target date and requires birth time and place for the Ascendant, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly advise when to use this tool over alternatives like 'returns' or 'directions', nor does it mention conditions where profections may not be appropriate.

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