Astrocartography (A*C*G)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description only needs to add extra behavioral context. It adds a cost note and group tag, but does not disclose traits like output format, pagination, or side effects beyond what annotations cover.

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 very concise: two sentences plus group/cost info and an example. Every sentence adds value. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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 has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details about the return format or what lines are produced. For a mapping tool, more context (e.g., what the output contains) would be helpful. The example request body partially compensates but the overall completeness is average.

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 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description does not add any parameter meaning beyond the schema, but includes an example request body that implicitly illustrates parameter usage. Baseline 3 applies since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Calculate A*C*G lines for all planets' and explains what these lines are (geodetic map lines where each planet was on an angle at birth). The verb 'calculate' and resource 'A*C*G lines' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'solar_acg' or 'acg_zones', which may overlap in purpose.

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 a cost (50 credits) and a group tag [Astro-Geography], which implies usage context but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are given.

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