calculate_natal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds the notion that the facts are 'confirmed' and lists the chart systems involved, but it provides no additional behavioral details such as input requirements, error cases, or how the payload is interpreted.

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 concise sentence with no filler and front-loads the core action. It is structurally clean, though the brevity comes at the cost of necessary parameter guidance.

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?

This is a complex tool with a fully open payload and multiple chart systems, yet the description explains none of the required inputs or constraints. The output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation, but the input side is left critically underspecified for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 input schema provides a single generic 'payload' object with additionalProperties allowed and no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description gives no information about what the payload should contain, how to specify the chart type, or what fields are required, so an agent has almost no guidance for constructing valid arguments.

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 states a specific verb ('calculates') and resource ('BaZi, Ziwei, or Western natal chart facts'), which is clear and distinguishes the tool's domain from siblings like calculate_event and calculate_timing. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings in the description itself, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus calculate_event, calculate_timing, or search_knowledge. The description implies natal chart calculations but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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