get_deep_reading

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — that it returns raw per-system engine output rather than a formatted synthesis — but says nothing about latency, localization behavior beyond lang, or failure modes for unknown slugs.

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 the core purpose, then the input contract, then the return behavior. The 26-slug enumeration is long but earns its place as the tool's key discriminator; no filler sentences.

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 12-parameter astrological chart tool with no output schema, the description covers the system selection and the shape of the return, but leaves the time/location parameters largely to a low-coverage schema. An agent can call it correctly, but not confidently for edge cases like unknown birth time combined with missing timezone.

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 only 25% across 12 parameters, so the description must carry more weight. It does compensate for the most important parameter by enumerating all 26 canonical system slugs, which is genuinely valuable, but leaves year/month/day/hour/minute/timezone/lat/lon/lang entirely to the schema and does not explain the lat/lon vs. location precedence beyond what the schema already says.

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 a focused reading for ONE specific divination system from the 26') and explicitly scopes it to a single system, which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_26_systems and from the side-by-side view it points to on the website. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the 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 makes the single-system scope explicit and redirects multi-system comparison to mythsensus.com, which is a usable when-to-use cue. It does not name a sibling tool as the alternative (list_26_systems only appears indirectly in the schema), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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