Almuten Figuris

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds no further behavioral details beyond the group and cost, which is acceptable but adds little value. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short (two sentences plus metadata) and front-loaded with purpose, but lacks structured details like required/optional parameters or output format. It is concise but under-specifies for the number of parameters.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and limited annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, the meaning of 'key chart positions', or the effect of optional parameters, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 11 parameters, the description should explain parameters but only provides an example with 5 of them (date, time, timezoneOffset, latitude, longitude). Parameters like houseSystem, zodiacType, ayanamsaId, cosmogram are completely undocumented.

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 'the planet with the highest essential dignity score across the key chart positions', providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not specify what the 'key chart positions' are, leaving some ambiguity, and does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling 'essential_dignities' tool, which calculates individual dignity scores.

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 groups the tool under 'Dignities & Receptions' and provides an example, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'essential_dignities' or 'receptions'. It lacks when-not-to-use or selection criteria.

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