calculate_cosmic_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses determinism ('same input always returns the same output'), behavior when time_known is false (flags approximate), and limitations of free preview (systems beyond free are noted with upsell). No destructive actions, so adequate transparency.

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 paragraph with front-loaded purpose. It is informative without fluff, listing examples of systems and explaining return structure. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but still concise.

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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return value (numeric score, tier, percentile, per-system summary) and covers key parameters' behavior. It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand the tool's output and options.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining typo-tolerant system names, time_known default inference from hour, and offline location resolution, going beyond the schema descriptions.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Compute the Mythsensus Cosmic Score (1-999) for a birth date.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the core scoring function, unlike informational tools like about_mythsensus_engine or list_26_systems.

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 clear context for use: computing a cosmic score for a birth date. It details optional parameters (systems[], time_known, location) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like get_deep_reading. Still, the usage is clear from context.

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