Western Natal Chart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds substantial behavioral context by warning that an incorrect timezone shifts the Ascendant, noting that house_system is accepted here but silently ignored by other endpoints, and clarifying that ayanamsa is always tropical even if a value is supplied. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and helps an agent anticipate surprising behavior.

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 long but well-structured with clear sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, IMPORTANT, NOTE, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH) and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. Every section earns its place given the nested parameter object, timezone pitfall, and confusing sibling landscape; a few typographical artifacts and duplicated schema examples keep it from a perfect score.

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 tool with nested inputs, multiple house systems, timezone sensitivity, and over 100 sibling tools, the description covers the full workflow, input contract with examples, failure-relevant pitfalls, and disambiguation. Since an output schema exists, the description need not enumerate return fields, and the docs link covers the full output/error contract. Nothing essential is missing.

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 meaning beyond the schema by explaining why timezone matters (house cusps/Ascendant), by noting the house_system quirk across sibling endpoints, and by explicitly documenting the absent ayanamsa field. Some content repeats schema examples, but the additional contextual guidance pushes it above baseline.

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-qualifier pair — 'Calculate a complete Western natal chart using the tropical zodiac and Swiss Ephemeris' — and lists concrete outputs (10 planets, house placements, dignities, aspects, balance statistics). It explicitly disambiguates from asterwise_get_natal_chart (Vedic/sidereal) and asterwise_get_western_aspects (raw longitudes), so an agent can distinguish this tool from close 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 description provides explicit when-to-use guidance with a 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section naming two alternatives and the exact conditions that select them (Vedic vs tropical; full chart vs already-known positions). It also includes a WORKFLOW section saying this tool is standalone and lists downstream AFTER tools (transits, synastry, solar return), giving sequencing context that is rare and valuable.

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