Western Composite

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that house_system is ignored and that the response contains composite planets with dignities and aspects, going beyond the annotations. However, it does not detail error behavior, though it links to a full output and error contract.

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 WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE, and contract link sections. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy or filler.

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 nested parameter objects and output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It specifies prerequisites, differentiates from closely related tools, notes ignored parameters, and points to the full output and error contract.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for person1, person2, and response_format. The description adds valuable caveats such as 'house_system ignored' and clarifies that each person uses WesternBirthData, supplementing the schema meaningfully.

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 identifies the tool as returning a midpoint composite chart for two people, with composite planets, dignities, and aspects. It explicitly differentiates this from synastry and numeric compatibility tools in the DO NOT CONFUSE section, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit guidance to examine inter-chart aspects via asterwise_get_western_synastry before the composite. The INPUT CONTRACT and DO NOT CONFUSE sections clarify when this tool is appropriate versus synastry or compatibility tools, providing strong usage direction.

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