Sade Sati

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the API pins to the current day, there is no explicit query date, and the output includes intensity, upcoming cycles, and historical rows. It also references the full output/error contract via link.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clearly labeled WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, and DO NOT CONFUSE sections. Each section earns its place, and the external documentation link avoids bloating the description with full contract details.

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 moderate complexity, the existing output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete. It states the computation, the date behavior, the output contents, the recommended workflow, sibling distinctions, and points to the full contract. An agent has enough to select and invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some input-contract context ('No explicit query date — API pins to current day' and 'BirthData global contract applies'), but it does not meaningfully elaborate on the individual birth or response_format parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Evaluates Saturn's seven-and-a-half-year Moon-sign cycle phases against natal data for the current day and returns intensity, upcoming cycles, and historical rows.' It clearly distinguishes itself from asterwise_get_gochar and asterwise_get_transits in the DO NOT CONFUSE section, so an agent can differentiate it from siblings without opening schemas.

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 WORKFLOW section explicitly recommends a before-tool (asterwise_get_natal_chart) and an after-tool (asterwise_get_gochar), while the DO NOT CONFUSE section names two alternatives and explains why they differ. This gives the agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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