compute_natal_chart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the internal conversion from UT1 to TT, the two dominant computation pathways (dynamical vs Earth-rotation), the consequence of an incorrect input (rotation of every cusp by a specific amount), and the ayanamsha behavior (returns mean, not true). This is a rich behavioral disclosure for a computation tool.

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 main description is one sentence and front-loaded correctly. However, the ayanamsha enum description is extremely verbose (a giant paragraph listing every system's derivation), which while valuable, is dumped into the description rather than structured. It is informational but could overwhelm an agent scanning for just the enum choices.

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 computation tool with no output schema, the description states what the output contains (ChartGraph with positions, cusps, aspects, nakshatras, dignities) and covers the key edge cases an agent would need to know (time scale, ayanamsha mean-vs-true, star-based systems). It doesn't explain house system options in detail, but the schema provides the default and the description gives room to pass any of the common systems.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds beyond the schema: it explains the ayanamsha systems in detail, clarifies the UT1 vs TDB pitfall (quantifying the error), and lists which ayanamshas are star-based vs precession-derived. This adds meaning beyond the bare enum and field 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 states a specific verb ('Compute') and resource ('natal astrological chart') and enumerates the output (ChartGraph with planetary positions, house cusps, aspects, nakshatras, dignities). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which compute panchanga, gochara, dasha, etc.

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 clearly implies use for generating a natal chart, and the parameter descriptions include a clear warning about UT1 vs TDB (critical when-to-use guidance) and explicit instructions to add nutation for true ayanamsha. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, but the specificity of its purpose is sufficient for an agent to infer when to use it.

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