Western Aspects

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

The description adds context beyond the annotations by specifying 'standard natal orbs' and the input format (tropical longitude). Since annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description does not contradict them and provides a useful default behavior detail, though it could mention potential orb variations or error handling.

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 well-structured with clear sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH) and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. While it is slightly verbose due to the embedded workflow and contract text, the structure makes it easy to navigate and not overly redundant.

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?

The description includes workflow context, input contract details, links to full documentation, and differentiates from sibling tools. It does not provide an explicit output schema, but the response_format parameter and phrase 'returns every aspect' give sufficient indication of the result. The link to docs fills any remaining gaps, making it complete for typical use.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions, but the description text adds meaningful constraints not present in the schema: positions must contain at least 2 entries, gives an explicit example, and clarifies the coordinate type (tropical longitude). This goes beyond the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool calculates all active aspects from supplied planetary longitudes, with explicit input and output. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from similar tools (asterwise_get_western_natal and asterwise_get_western_synastry) in the 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit usage guidance via the WORKFLOW section, stating it can be used standalone or after obtaining positions from asterwise_get_western_natal. It also directly names the alternatives to avoid confusion, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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