should_i_do_it

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

The description explains the recommendation is based on planetary motion, lunar phase, and Kp-index, with data sources from NASA and NOAA. It mentions optional date with default. However, it does not disclose the output format or any potential limitations, though annotations are absent.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by examples, data sources, and parameter details. Each part earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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's simplicity and that an output schema exists, the description covers input parameters and methodology adequately. It lacks mention of any prerequisites or domain limitations, but overall is 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?

The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates fully: for 'action', it says 'Be specific' with examples; for 'date', it specifies ISO 8601 format and default behavior. This adds significant 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 description clearly states it provides a yes/no astrological recommendation for a specific action, using specific verbs and resource. Examples and data source details distinguish it from sibling tools like get_cosmic_risk_score or get_favorable_window.

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 examples of actions but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like get_favorable_window or get_cosmic_risk_score. There is no mention of when not to use it or alternatives.

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